Interference No. 104,171
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
In accordance with junior party Hurst’s concession
of priority filed May 8, 1998 (copy attached), judgment on the
issue of priority if hereby entered against Hurst et al.’s
claims that correspond to the count, i.e., patent claims 1-18,
which means Hurst is not entitled to a patent including those
claims. Judgment on the issue of priority therefore is
awarded in favor of Strolle et al.’s claims that correspond to
the count, i.e., application claims 1-54, 78-80, and 85-90 (of
which the examiner has indicated that claims 12-28, 78-80, and
85-90 are unpatentable over the prior art -- see pages 52-59
of the attachment to the Interference Initial Memorandum).
__________________________ )
ANDREW H. METZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF
__________________________ ) PATENT
APPEALS
WILLIAM F. PATE, III ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
__________________________ )
JOHN C. MARTIN )
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007