Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
order to show cause why judgment should not be entered against
Cragg. Party Cragg requested final hearing for review of the
Board’s decision on Cragg’s preliminary motions 1 and 2 and on
Fogarty’s preliminary motion 12. According to party Cragg it
should not have been made a junior party and thus need not
have had to put on a priority case in the first instance.
Party Fogarty requested review of the Board’s decision on its
preliminary motions 8 and 10. Oral argument was made on
February 28, 2001, before administrative patent judges
Schafer, Lee and Medley.
Findings of Fact
The below-listed findings as well as those contained in
the discussion portion of this opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. This interference was declared on April 23, 1998,
between three parties, Martin, Fogarty, and Goicoechea (now
Cragg).
2. The involved patent of Martin is Patent No.
5,575,817, based on application 08/293,541, filed August 19,
1994.
3. The involved application of Cragg is application
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007