HARTLEY V. RICHARDS et al. - Page 2




                 cancelled all of its pending application claims and has presented new claims 76-86                                                   
                 which do not interfere in fact with the remaining claims of the Richards patent.  While                                              
                 claims 76-86 shall be entered into Hartley’s 08/183,354 application, there has been no                                               
                 determination made that these claims are patentable to Hartley.  As we noted in our                                                  
                 decision on the joint motion (Paper 21 at 12),                                                                                       
                                   Our decision to allow Hartley to add new claims to its application                                                 
                          should not be construed as a determination that these new claims are                                                        
                          patentable to Hartley.  For example, we note that certain of Hartley’s new                                                  
                          claims, e.g., claims 82 [footnote omitted] through 86, appear to be of                                                      
                          broader scope than the claims involved in the interferences.  These new                                                     
                          claims may be thoroughly examined upon the resumption of ex parte                                                           
                          prosecution. It is appropriate to return the Hartley application.                                                           

                          Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is                                                               
                          ORDERED that there is no interference-in-fact between claims 3 and 4 of                                                     
                 Richards’ involved patent 5,650,302 and claims 76-86 of Hartley’s involved application                                               
                 08/183,354.                                                                                                                          
                          FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is authorized to enter the Richards statutory                                                
                 disclaimer filed with the joint motion (Paper 19 at Joint Exhibit 8).                                                                
                          FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is authorized to enter the Hartley                                                           
                 amendment filed May 24, 2005 (Paper 20).                                                                                             
                          FURTHER ORDERED that Richards is not entitled to a patent containing claims                                                 
                 1 and 2 of patent 5,650,302.                                                                                                         
                          FURTHER ORDERED that Hartley is not entitled to a patent containing claims                                                  
                 47-53, 56-72, 74 and 75  of application 08/183,354, filed January 19, 1994.                                                          



                                                                          2                                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007