FINAL JUDGMENT
Junior parties Froehler and Pederson et al. (Pederson) have requested that adverse judgment be
entered against them in this interference. Upon consideration of their respective requests, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Attachment to Paper 2, pp. 5-8), the sole
count in the interference, is awarded against junior parties Froehler and Pederson;
FURTHER ORDERED that, on the record before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,
junior party, THORI PEDERSON, SUDHIR AGRAWAL, SANDRA MAYRAND and PAUL C.
ZAMECNIK, is not entitled to a patent claiming the subject matter of claims 1 through 12 (corresponding
to Count 1) of Patent 5,220,007; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, on the record before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,
junior part, BRIAN C. FROEHLER, is not entitled to a patent claiming the subject matter of claims 1
through 20 (corresponding to Count 1) of Patent 5,256,775.
Pursuant to the decision on preliminary motion (Paper 43) entered on even date with this decision,
we hold that an interference-in-fact does not exist between the subject matter of Claims 1 through 19 of
Cook et al. Patent 5,623,065; Claims 1 through 12 of Pederson Patent 5,220,007; Claims 1 through 20
of Froehler Patent 5,256,775; and Claims 30 through 40, 42 through 45, 47, 49 through 60 and 62 through
69 of Walder et al. Application 08/268,381. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that PHILLIP D. COOK and BRETT P. MONIA are entitled to a patent on the
subject matter of claims 1 through 19 (corresponding to Count 1) of Patent 5,623,065;
FURTHER ORDERED that JOSEPH A. WALDER, ROXANNE Y. WALDER, PAUL S.
EDER and JOHN M. DAGLE are entitled to a patent on the subject matter of Claims 30 through 40, 42
through 45, 47, 49 through 60 and 62 through 69 Application 08/268,381; and
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007