Interference No. 104,745
derivation, namely, Laiko's derivation of the invention from Dr. Brian Chait, who is not a party
to this interference.
In an order dated 14 March 2002,6 the Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) postponed until
the priority phase the filing of (1) an opposition and reply to Laiko's Motion 1 under § 1.634 to
correct inventorship and (2) Bai's proposed motion under § 1.633(a) alleging unpatentability on
the ground of third party derivation.
On 23 September 2002, following a 5 September 2002 oral argument, a Trial Section
Merits Panel issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why judgment should not be
entered against Laiko's claim 1 and Bai's claim 41, which are the bases for the two count
alternatives, on the ground of unpatentability over Hillenkamp.
On 24 February 2004, a Trial Section Merits Panel issued a "Decision on Order To Show
Cause and Preliminary Motions"7 (hereinafter "Motions Decision"), adhered to on
reconsideration,8 holding that both parties had demonstrated the patentability of their respective
claims over Hillenkamp and also granting Laiko's Preliminary Motions 2 and 3 under
§ 1.633(c)(4) to designate Laiko's claims 4 and 6 as not corresponding to the count.
6 Paper No. 54.
7 Paper No. 89.
8 Paper No. 93.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007