Interference No. 105,136 Paper 62
Wang v. Imler Page 8
26. Imler opposed Wang preliminary motion 1 (Paper 45) and Wang replied
(Paper 50).
27. Thereafter, Imler requested authorization to file a preliminary motion under
37 CFR § 1.633(i) in response to Wang's preliminary motion 1 (Paper 52 at 2).
28. In an order entered 24 March 2004, Imler's request to file the responsive motion
was denied. In particular, the order stated (Paper 52 at 2):
Imler's request to file a preliminary motion under 37 CFR
§ 1.633(i) is DENIED. If Wang preliminary motion 1 is
granted, then Imler may present new or amended claims
when it returns to ex parte prosecution before the examiner.
The cancelling of the '007 claims
29. Oral argument was set in the interference for 19 April 2004 (Paper 51).
30. During a series of conference calls, Imler sought and was given authorization to
file an amendment cancelling all the '007 claims that correspond to the count
(Paper 59 at 3).
31. In view of Imler's amendment cancelling the '007 claims (Paper 58), oral
argument was cancelled (Paper 59).
32. During one of the conference calls, Wang indicated that it did not oppose Imler
being authorized to cancel the '007 corresponding claims and to pursue
patentable claims during ex parte prosecution. However, Wang did not agree
that a judgment of priority against Wang was appropriate.
33. In a subsequent conference call, Wang argued that judgment on priority should
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007