Interference No. 104,708
Cheslock v. Beerwerth
On November 21, 2002, junior party Cheslock filed a paper requesting entry of adverse
judgment with respect to Counts 1 and 3. (Paper No. 106) The request is .
On November 21, 2002, senior party Beerwerth filed a paper to indicate that it does not
intend to seek review at final hearing of the motion panel’s holding of unpatentability of all of
senior party’s claims corresponding to Count 2, claims 23, 24, and 25, for lack of written
description in the specification.
Neither party filed a paper within the time permitted to indicate disagreement with the
motion panel’s view that assuming all of senior party’s claims corresponding to Count 2 are
unpatentable for lack of written description in the specification then the senior party is without
standing to continue in this proceeding to a priority determination with respect to Count 2.
Therefore, it is now time appropriate to enter judgment and terminate this interference.
It is
that Count 2 of this interference is hereby cancelled in light of senior party’s
lack of standing to continue to the priority phase with respect to that count;
that judgment as to the subject matter of Count 1 is hereby
entered against junior party EDWARD P. CHESLOCK, ERIC L. CANFIELD, and RICHARD
K. HARRIS;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007