DADGAR et al. V. GILL et al. - Page 1

                          The opinion in support of the decision being                
                       entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.           
          Paper 116                                                                   
          Filed by:  Trial Section Merits Panel                                       
          Box Interference                                                            
          Washington, D.C.  20231                Filed                                
          Tel:  703-308-9797                  16 August 2000                          
          Fax:  703-305-0942                                                          
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
               BILLIE B. DADGAR, DONALD E. BALHOFF, CHARLES H. KOLICH,                
                           MENG-SHENG AO and HOMER C. LIN,                            
                                    Junior Party,                                     
                              (Application 08/852,462),                               
                          JAMES C. GILL and JAMES L. DEVER,                           
                                    Senior Party                                      
                                  (Patent 5,726,252                                   
                              Application 09/120,518).                                
                           Patent Interference No. 104,249                            
          Before:  McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and                  
          SCHAFER and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.                           
          PER CURIAM.                                                                 
                                   FINAL DECISION                                     
               Based on a telephone conference on 11 August 2000, with                
          counsel of record, advising that the second draft proposed                  
          judgment was acceptable, it is                                              

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007