Interference No. 103,801
In the Decision on Preliminary Motion, mailed November 24, 1998 (Paper No. 41),
it was held that an interference-in-fact did not exist and both parties were notified that
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1,640(d)(1), a judgment would be entered in favor of each party
unless a party should show cause why such action should not be taken. The party
Shafferman filed its response to the show cause order. In the response, the party agrees
that an interference-in-fact does not exist, albeit on another rationale not adopted by the
decision. Final hearing was not requested to review the decision. Accordingly, it is held
that an interference-in-fact does not exist. Accordingly, on the present record, Dani P.
Bolognesi, Thomas J. Matthews and Carl T. Wild, the junior party, are entitled to a patent
containing claims 1, 6, 8 and 13 to 19, and
Avigdor Shafferman, the senior party, is entitled to a patent containing claims 18, 19, 21 to
23, 25, 26, 28 and 31 to 35.
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
MICHAEL SOFOCLEOUS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MARY F. DOWNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Attorneys for Bolognesi et al.:
S. Leslie Misrock et al.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007