1 dismissed as moot. (Paper 42). Hong Motion 2, which requested that Conzelmann
2 claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 12 be held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) was also
3 dismissed as moot. (Paper 37, p. 6). Hong Motion 3, which requested that all of
4 Conzelmann’s claims be held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) was granted-
5 in-part with respect to the extent it requested that Conzelmann claim 9 be held
6 unpatentable and dismissed with respect to Conzelmann claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 12.
7 (Paper 37, p. 7). Conzelmann Motion 1, which requested that all of Hong’s claims
8 be held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) was dismissed as moot. (Paper
9 42).
10
11 It is:
12 Ordered that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the sole count in
13 interference (Redeclaration, Paper 19, p. 2), is awarded against Hong.
14 Further Ordered that Hong is not entitled to a patent containing claims 7-
15 10, 12, 17, 18, 20 and 22 of U.S. Application 09/724,388, all of which correspond
16 to Count 1.
17 Further Ordered that Conzelmann is not entitled to a patent containing
18 claim 9. (Paper 37, p. 7, ll. 2-11, granting Hong Motion 3 with respect to claim 9).
19 Further Ordered that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in the
20 files of Hong, U.S. Application 09/724,388 and Conzelmann, U.S. Patent
21 6,033,886.
22 Further Ordered that the parties’ attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. §135(c)
23 and Bd. R. 205.
24
25
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013