submitted for the Sibner application and patent are presumably based on the assumption that the
interference will be terminated without entering judgment against either Sibner or Gilbert. As
explained above, since Sibner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Gilbert was under an
obligation to assign the invention, we make no comments regarding the proposed terminal
disclaimers in either the Sibner application or patent. Judgment is entered against Sibner,
leaving Sibner with no claims in either its involved patent or application. Lastly, we make no
comment regarding the alleged incorrect inventorship of the Gilbert application. Sibner did not
file a preliminary motion, during the preliminary motion period, which alleges that the
inventorship of the involved Gilbert application is incorrect. In any event, a proposed change of
inventorship to the Gilbert application may be submitted during ex parte prosecution of the
Gilbert application.
D. JUDGMENT
Since Sibner has failed to file a preliminary statement and since Sibner has failed to show
good cause why judgment should not be entered against it, it is
ORDERED that judgment as to Count 1 (Paper 1 at 5), the sole count in the interference,
is awarded against junior party JEFFREY A. SIBNER.
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JEFFREY A. SIBNER is not entitled to a
patent containing claims 1-21 (corresponding to Count 1) of patent 5,766,011, or claims 1-34
(corresponding to Count 1) of application 09/114,166;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in the files of
applications 09/114,166 and 08/955,005, and U.S. Patent 5,766,011;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007