MCBRIDE et al. V. POLLAK et al. V. POLLAK et al. V. POLLAK et al. - Page 2





                                                                                                             hiterference No. 104,789                         
                                                                                                                              Page No. 2                      
                           For the reasons provided in the Decision on Rule 641 and Order to Show Cause (Paper                                                

                  No. 119), it is:                                                                                                                            

                           ORDERED that McBride is not entitled to claims 2, 3, 7 and 10 of its U.S. Application                                              

                  08/253,973 as these claims are unpatentable over Rodwell U.S. Patent No. 5,196,5 10 and                                                     

                  Rodwell WO 91/17173.                                                                                                                        

                           FURTHER ORDERED that Pollak is not entitled to 1) Pollak U.S. Patent No.                                                           

                  5,662,885 claims 1-9 and 14-15; 2) Pollak U.S. Patent No. 5,780,006 claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11 and                                               

                  15-18; and 3) Pollak 5,976,495 claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11 and 14-25.                                                                             

                           FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this decision be placed in the involved McBride                                                     

                  U.S. Application No. 08/253,973 and Pollak's involved U.S. Patents 5,662,885, 5,780,006 and                                                 

                  5,976,495.                                                                                                                                  

                           FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, attention is directed to                                                  

                  35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661.                                                                                                      

                                   CZfLG a&                                                                                                                   

                                    SAL ARDNERLANE                                                                                                            
                                      Aministrative Patent Judge                                                                                              


                                                                                                      BOARD OF PATENT                                         
                                 ?M APPEALS                                                                                                                   
                                    Administrative Patent Judge AND                                                                                           
                                                                                                      INTERFERENCES                                           


                                               NA                                                                                                             
                                    Administrative ate Judge                                                                                                  









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007