Ex Parte HAZES - Page 18




                                                                                Interference No. 104,8 3 3             
                                                                                            Page No. 18                
             seeks benefit of its German application for all alternatives of the count, including original counts      
             I and 2, as to its reissue application (Hazes preliminary motions 4, 6, and 8). Bries preliminary         
             motion 4 seeks leave to add claims 86-90 to its application, which are similar to Hazes reissue           
             application claims, except that the proposed claims eliminate the ratio.                                  
                    During oral argument, counsel for 3M agreed that if the panel determined that Hazes                
             should not be accorded benefit of its German application for the purposes of priority with respect        
             to its involved patent, that Hazes would also not be entitled to the benefit of the German                
             application for its reissue application that it seeks to add to the interference (Paper 114 at 22-24).    
             Indeed, all of the variations of the count(s) in contemplation of adding the Hazes reissue                
             application, include the limitations that (1) the film strip is elastically or plastically extensible,    
             (2) the film strip exhibits an adhesion less than its cohesion, and (3) the adhesion disappears on        
             extension. As discussed in connection with Hazes preliminary motion 7, Hazes has failed to                
             direct us to where in the German application that the inventors had contemplated a film strip that        
             is both plastically or elastically extensible and that exhibits an adhesion less than its. cohesion, the  
             adhesion of which disappears on extension. Hazes failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the              
             German application's two mutually exclusive dependent claims 5 and 6, without more, constitute            
             an enabling embodiment within the scope of the various counts.                                            
                    Counsel for 3M agreed that if the reissue application was added solely for the purpose of          
             entering judgment against it, on the basis that Hazes was not entitled to the benefit of its German       
             patent application for its reissue application, then there would be no reason to decide the               
             remaining preliminary motions regarding count and claim construction with respect to Hazes                









Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007