Interference No. 105,136 Paper 62
Wang v. Imler Page 6
67 to the '143 application, Imler pointed out that Wang had not put into evidence
the relied upon prior art ('821, Paper 92 at 2, n.1).
14. Nonetheless, it does not appear from a review of the '821 record that Wang
made any attempt during the pendency of the '821 interference to supplement
the record by placing into evidence the relied upon prior art.
15. The '821 record indicates that Wang did not request reconsideration of the
decision granting the Imler preliminary motion seeking to add claims 66 and 67
to the '143 application.
16. Claims 66 and 67 that were added to the '143 application during the '821
interference are the same claims 66 and 67 that are involved in the present
interference.
The motions of the present interference
17. Because it was determined that a preliminary motion period as to Imler's '143
claims was de facto provided in the '821 interference, Wang was not authorized
to file a preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) attacking the patentability of
Imler's '143 claims (Paper 32 at 10-11).
18. However, since Imler's '007 claims were not involved in the '821 interference,
Wang was authorized to file a preliminary motion under 37 CFR
§ 1.633(a) seeking judgment that Imler's involved '007 claims are not patentable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007