Interference 105,439
1 The Board has entered a Decision on Motions in this interference.
2 (Paper 75). As discussed in the Decision, all of Sapolsky’s involved claims
3 fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. ¶ 112,
4 1st paragraph. Additionally, the Board has found that Sapolsky’s proposed
5 claims 58-62 (Sapolsky Contingent Responsive Motion 1, Paper 46),
6 likewise fail to comply with the written description requirement.
7 Accordingly, Sapolsky’s involved application lacks a basis to challenge
8 Lander’s priority of invention. Judgment is entered against Sapolsky.
9 It is:
10 Ordered that judgment on priority of invention as to Count 1, the sole
11 count in interference, is awarded against Sapolsky.
12 Further Ordered that Sapolsky is not entitled to claims 13-21, 24, 25
13 and 27-31 of U.S. Application 10/942,479, all of which correspond to Count
14 1.
15 Further Ordered that Sapolsky is not entitled to claims 58-62, each
16 of which was presented in Sapolsky Contingent Responsive Motion 1 (Paper
17 46).
18 Further Ordered that a copy of this paper be placed in the files of
19 Sapolsky, U.S. Application 10/942,479 and Landers, U.S. Patent 6,703,228.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013