Interference No. 104,001
Esserman et al.'s patent claims 60 and 68, which means
Esserman et al. are not entitled to a patent including those
claims. Judgment is therefore awarded in favor of Gammie's4
claims that correspond to the count (i.e., reissue application
claims 16-20, 22, 35-43, 49, 50, 56, and 58 and patent claims
16-20, 22, 35-43, 49, 50, 66, and 58), which means Gammie is
entitled to a patent including those claims.
)
__________________________ )
ANDREW H. METZ )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
) BOARD
OF
__________________________ ) PATENT
APPEALS
WILLIAM F. PATE, III ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge) INTERFERENCES
)
)
__________________________ )
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
This judgment makes entry of the statutory disclaimer4
unnecessary.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007