terminate interference Number 104, 391 in favor of the junior party, Vaillancourt.” A paper title
AGREEMENT is attached. The agreement states in part:
1. The Senior party hereby concedes that as between said parties, the
Junior party was the first to reduce the invention of Count 1 to practice and that
the evidence of such reduction to practice predated the Senior Party’s filing
date.
* * * * *
5. The Senior party hereby withdraws from the Interference No. 104,391.
6. Interference No. 104,631 should be dissolved herewith in favor of the
Junior Party Vaillancourt.
A telephone conference was held February 14, 2000, at approximately 3:00 p.m. involving:
1. Stephen M. Chin, Esq., counsel for Vaillancourt;
2. Carol Burton, Esq., counsel for Geist; and
3. Richard E. Schafer, Administrative Patent Judge.
At the conference counsel confirmed that the filing of the agreement was to be treated as a request for
entry of adverse judgment against the Senior party under 37 CFR § 1.662(a). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1, p.31), the sole count in the
interference, is awarded against the Senior party, LEROY D. GEIST and ROGER P. KAMINSKI;
FURTHER ORDERED that, judgment on priority as to Count 1 is awarded in favor of Junior
party VINCENT L. VAILLANCOURT;
FURTHER ORDERED that Senior party, LEROY D. GEIST and ROGER P. KAMINSKI, is
not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-24 (corresponding to Count 1) of Application 08/766,351,
filed December 13, 1996;
FURTHER ORDERED that Junior party, VINCENT L. VAILLANCOURT, is entitled to a
patent containing claims 1-5 and 7-8, (corresponding to Count 1) of Application 08/811,779, filed
March 6, 1996; and
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007