matter which was clearly supported, Bilstad ran the risk that the copied claims would be held to lack
written descriptive support in its specification.
Wakalopulos Preliminary Motion 1 is granted."
FINAL JLTDGNIENT
This interference was provoked by Bilstad based upon claims which have been held not to
be supported by a written description. Bilstad has not filed a motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(2)
pursuaritto § 1.633(i) to add claims to the Bilstad application that were both supported by the Bilstad
application and interfere with Wakalopulos's claims. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055-56,44 USPQ2d at
1029. Thus, Bilstad lacks standing to prosecute this interference. Interferences are to be conducted
"to secure thejust, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every interference." 37 CFR § 1.601.
It would be inconsistent with this goal to continue an interference where the provoking party does
not have written descriptive support for that party's involved claims. It is, therefore, appropriate to
terminate the interference with a final judgment at this time without addressing the parties' other
preliminary motions.
ORDER
it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the only count in this interference, is
awarded against junior party ARNOLD C. BILSTAD, BRADLEY H. BUCHANAN, ALAN W.
MARTILLA and ARCHIE WOODWORTH;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party, ARNOLD C. BILSTAD, BRADLEY H.
BUCHANAN, ALAN W. MARTILLA and ARCHIE WOODWORTH, is not entitled to a patent
containing Claims 57-65 of Application 09/294,964;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement and it has not already been
filed, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661; and
14 In reaching our decision, it was unnecessary and we have not considered Wakalopulos Reply I (Paper
49) on § 112, 11, issue.
-28-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007