Interference 103,781
discovery and judgment that Fischhoff’s claims designated as
corresponding to the interference count are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 in view of the possible prior invention
thereof by Barton was, or might be, necessary (Adang’s REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION and RESPONSES RE: THE DECISION ON MOTIONS AND
REQUEST (Paper No. 154); APJ’s DECISION AND ORDER ON PROPOSED
PRELIMINARY AND MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS AND REQUESTS (Paper
No. 164); Adang’s Request For Reconsideration (Paper No. 166) of
the APJ’s Decision And Order On Proposed Preliminary And
Miscellaneous Motions And Requests; and APJ’s Decision (Paper
No. 168) on Adang’s Request For Reconsideration, granting-in-part
and denying-in-part Adang’s Request For Reconsideration).
Before Adang finished timely responding and requesting
reconsideration of responses to the APJ’s order to specify and
explain what motions were necessary as a result of the
redeclaration of the interference with Barton reinstated as a
junior party, Adang knew that the interference had been
redeclared with Barton reinstated as a junior party; Adang knew
that the interference had been redeclared with new Count 2 being
alternatively directed to each claim pending in Barton’s involved
application, each claim pending in Fischhoff’s involved
application, and every claim of Adang’s involved patent; Adang
knew that the Federal Circuit had decided Barton v. Adang,
-184-
Page: Previous 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007