Interference No. 103,878
Based on the underlying facts as recited above, it
is our legal conclusion that neither Henson nor Wilkerson has
been established as a co-inventor with Thompson by a
preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, judgment will
be entered against the junior party on the ground of lack of
originality at the conclusion of this decision.
Junior party Thompson et al.’s Motion for Judgment
During a preliminary motion period established by
the APJ, junior party Thompson et al. filed a motion under 37 8
CFR
§ 1.633(a) for judgment that claims 1-7 (all claims) of the
senior party’s involved patent were unpatentable. In a
decision mailed January 22, 1998, the APJ deferred decision9
of the motion to final hearing.
The motion alleged that all claims of the senior
party patent designated as corresponding to the count were
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103. The motion
8Paper No. 9.
9Paper No. 19.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007