Interference No. 104,745
Concurrently with that paper, the APJ issued a paper redeclaring the interference to designate
Bai's claims 34-41 and only Laiko's claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 as corresponding to the count.9
Following redeclaration, both parties took testimony on priority.10 Each party submitted
an opening brief in support of its case-in-chief, a brief in opposition to the opponent's case-in-
chief, and a reply brief.11
Bai's opening brief explains that "Bai is no longer pursuing the allegation that Laiko
derived the invention from a third party" and that "Bai no longer challenges Laiko's motion to
change inventorship by deleting Dr. Alma Burlingame as an inventor." BBr 3, ¶ 9. Accordingly,
Laiko's Motion 1 to correct inventorship by deleting Dr. Burlingame as an inventor is hereby
granted. The interference is being redeclared accordingly in a separate paper mailed herewith.
The caption of the "JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 658," also mailed herewith as a separate paper,
reflects that change.
Laiko has filed a motion12 to suppress a so-called "rebuttal" declaration by Dr. John Fenn
(BX 2117) on the ground that it is not proper rebuttal evidence.
Both parties were represented by counsel at the 16 December 2003 oral hearing.
9 Paper No. 90.
10 The testimony of Bai's witnesses is included in Bai's exhibits. The testimony of Laiko's
witnesses constitutes Laiko's record ("LR").
11 Bai's opening brief, Laiko's opposition brief, and Bai's reply brief are hereinafter identified
as "BBr," "LOppBr," and "BRBr." Laiko's opening brief, Bai's opposition brief, and Laiko's
reply brief are hereinafter identified as "LBr," "BOppBr," and "LRBr."
12 Paper No. 115.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007