Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
width chosen from what would have been considered standard range or conventional range of
core widths at the time would have been a fit within the broad ranges recited in Correa's claims 5
and 6, or that no known core widths at the time of filing of Correa's involved application would
have been a fit within the broad ranges recited in Correa's claims 5 and 6.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Correa has not met its burden of proof
Because Correa's preliminary motion 5 does not set forth a prima facie basis for
entitlement to relief, we need not consider Roberts' opposition or Correa's reply. We do note,
however, that in the Csillag reference cited by Roberts, i.e., Patent No. 4,015,604, the narrow
longitudinally extending zones 28 are not barrier "cuffs" and thus the width of that zone is not
readily applicable to the width of a barrier cuff, and that the Roman-Hess reference, i.e., Patent
No. 4,655,759, does not disclose any specific core width or relationship between cuff width and
core width. Also, to the extent that the part of the napkin of the Romans-Hess reference that
folds up is deemed a cuff, the reference indicates the width of the fold line and not the cuff width.
Correa's preliminary motion 5 is denied.
F. Roberts' Preliminary Motion I
By this preliminary motion, Roberts seeks to have claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of Correa
designated as corresponding to the count. Under 37 CFR § 1.637(c)(3)(ii), Roberts as the
moving party must show that these claims define the same patentable invention as another claim
whose designation as corresponding to the count the moving party does not dispute. Roberts has
the burden of proof 37 CFR § 1.637(a). In that connection, Roberts selects Correa's claim 1,
whose correspondence to the count Roberts does not dispute, as the "another claim." The issue is
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007