Interference No. 104,745
junior party Bai et al.
Procedural background
The relevant procedural background is as follows. This interference was declared on
31 August 2001 with a single count (Count 1) that is the alternative union of Laiko et al.'s
("Laiko's") patent claim 1 and Bai et al.'s ("Bai's") application claim 41.3 The claims designated
as corresponding to the count when the interference was declared consisted of Laiko's claims 1-9
(all of the patent claims) and Bai's claims 34-41 (all of the pending application claims).
Laiko filed the following motions under 37 CFR §§ 1.633 and 1.634:
(a) Laiko's Motion 1 under § 1.634 to correct inventorship by removing Dr. Burlingame
as a named inventor in the involved patent, which would leave Dr. Laiko as the sole named
inventor;
(b) Laiko's Preliminary Motions 2 and 3 under § 1.633(c)(4) to designate Laiko's claims
4 and 6, respectively, as not corresponding to the count; and
(c) Laiko's Preliminary Motion 4 under § 1.633(a) motion alleging that Bai's claim 41 is
unpatentable for anticipation by Hillenkamp U.S. Patent 5,118,937 (BX 20754).
Also, Bai filed a paper5 stating an intent to file a 37 CFR § 1.633(a) motion alleging that
Laiko's involved claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) on the ground of third party
3 Interference File, Paper No. 1.
4 BX and LX refer to the Bai and Laiko exhibits.
5 Paper No. 16.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007