Interference 103,781
preliminary motion for judgment as to the patentability of
Fischhoff’s claims designated as corresponding to the existing
count under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 in view of Barton’s prior
invention or request discovery for possible evidence that Barton
was first to invent the subject matter defined by Fischhoff’s
claims corresponding to new Count 2 (Paper No. 154). Nor did
Adang explain why a new or renewed preliminary motion under
37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/§ 103 in
view of the “possible” prior invention thereof by Barton and the
request for discovery were necessary (Paper No. 154).
On its own volition, Monsanto filed an election pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.602(a) designating “Junior Party Fischhoff et al. as
first to invent, vis-a-vis the Junior Party Barton et al., the
subject matter defined by Count 2" and a statement of intent not
to submit “any further documents in this interference on behalf
of the Junior Party Barton” (Paper No. 182, filed July 21, 2003).
Thereafter, Adang requested permission to file a preliminary
motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) and request discovery, or remand
Fischhoff’s involved application to a primary examiner for
judgment of the patentability of all Fischhoff’s claims
designated as corresponding to the interference count under
35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 in view of the possible prior invention
thereof by Barton. The request was filed after the time period
-180-
Page: Previous 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007