Interference 103,781
Claim 40 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(written description requirement);
VI. asking the Board for leave to file a preliminary
motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(1) to redefine the interfering
subject matter by excluding Adang’s Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13
and 14 from Count 2;
VII. asking the Board for leave to file a renewed or
amended miscellaneous motion under 37 CFR § 1.635 for additional
discovery under 37 CFR § 1.687© relating to derivation of
invention; and
VIII. asking the Board to refrain from adding
Mycogen’s U.S. Patents 6,013,523 and 6,015,891 to this
interference.3
December 9, 2002 - Fischhoff and Barton filed Joint Comments
Concerning Adang’s Request for Reconsideration and Responses Re:
the Decision on Motions and Requests (Paper No. 161) asking the
Board to dismiss Adang’s request for reconsideration; deny
Adang’s requests for leave to file every new preliminary motion
3 Note that Adang’s REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION and
RESPONSES RE: THE DECISION ON MOTIONS AND REQUEST, filed
November 26, 2002 (Paper No. 154), did not request permission to
file a new or renewed motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment
that Fischhoff’s claims designated as corresponding to the count
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 over a prior
invention of Barton et al. or request or renew it previous
request for discovery of any information which might support the
new or renewed motion.
-171-
Page: Previous 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007