Interference 103,781
(Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.656(h)) itself invites us to peruse the
very evidence Fischhoff would have us suppress. Having
considered all the evidence submitted by the parties which is
particular to this interference and all the evidence submitted
by the parties common to this interference and the Delaware I,
Delaware II, and California infringement cases and appeals
identified herein, we are convinced that the evidence as a whole
does not show that Adang and Barton are entitled to patents
claiming the subject matter of their claims designated as
corresponding to Count 2; Fischhoff’s uncontested Preliminary
Motion 10 (Paper No. 88) should be, and has been, granted; and
Adang’s Request For Authorization To Address The Unpatentability
Of Fischhoff’s Claims And To Obtain Related Discovery (Paper
No. 199) properly was denied (Paper No. 212). Therefore,
Fischhoff Motion To Suppress Evidence (Pursuant To 37 CFR
§ 1.656(h))(Paper No. 248) is dismissed as moot.
DISMISSED.
7. Final Disposition of Interference 103,781
Priority of the invention defined by new Count 2 of this
interference has been determined against Senior Party Adang and
Junior Party Barton based on all the evidence of record.
Accordingly, it is
-193-
Page: Previous 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007