FURTHER ORDERED that the terminal disclaimer filed by Boutros be entered in
Boutros' involved application';
FURTHER ORDERED that in view of the three-judge merits panel decision that there
is no interference-in-fact, final judgment is entered that there is no interference-in-fact between
(1) Boutros claims 29-33 and (2) Lok claims 1-8 and 10-15;
FURTHER ORDERED that the subject matter of Lok claims 1-8 and 10-15 is no
impediment under the law to the issuance of a patent to Boutros;
FURTHER ORDERED that the subject matter of Boutros claims 29-33 is no basis for
cancellation of any of Lok claims 1-8 and 10-15;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in files of
application 09/918,494 and U.S. Patent 6,129,561; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the files of application 09/918,494 and U.S. Patent
6,129,561 be returned to the examiner for further action consistent with this opinion.
JAMESON LEE
Administrative Patent Judge
CAROL A. SPIEGEL
Administrative Patent Judge
SALLY C. MEDLEY
Administrative Patent Judge
Entered: 16 September 2003
The examiner shall enter the terminal disclaimer filed by Boutros (Paper 56).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007