Chapman et al v. Rhoads - Page 3




                                                                                                         Interference No. 105,209                         
                  Rhoads accorded benefit date of April 25, 1996 or a showing of good cause as to why such a                                              
                  deficiency should be excised, we enter judgment on priority against Chapman.                                                            
                           Upon consideration of the record, it is:                                                                                       
                           ORDERED that Junior Party Chapman claims 1-11 are unpatentable over prior art.                                                 
                  (Decision on Preliminary Motions, Paper No. 143).                                                                                       
                           FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Notice Declaring                                                      
                  Interference, Paper No. 1), the sole count in the interference, is awarded against  Junior Party                                        
                  Chapman.                                                                                                                                
                           FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Chapman is not entitled to a patent containing                                               
                  claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,228, which corresponds to Count 1 (Paper No. 1).                                                   
                           FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this final decision shall be placed and given a                                                 
                  paper number in the file of Chapman, U.S. Patent No. 6,216,228 and Rhoads, U.S. Application                                             
                  No. 10/118,849.                                                                                                                         
                           FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, attention is directed to                                              
                  35 U.S.C. § 135 (c).                                                                                                                    












                                                                            3                                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007