Ex Parte JOHNSON - Page 2




             Interference No. 104,313                                                                                           
             Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                                     

             Before SCHAFER, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judizes.                                                    

             LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                  
                                                        Introduction                                                            
                     This is a decision on the issue of priority. As will be explained below, junior party Sauer                
             has failed to demonstrate priority of invention. On even date herewith, in a separate paper, we                    
             are granting Sauer's motion 20 forjudgment under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) against the sole claim,                        
             claim 9, of senior party Kanzaki corresponding to the count. Entry of judgment against both                        
             parties is now appropriate.                                                                                        

                                                     Findin2s of Fact                                                           
                     I . Eight related interferences, including this one, were declared on February 16, 2000,                   
             Interference Nos. 104,311 through 104,316 and 104,496 and 104,497.                                                 
                     2. The same Kanzaki application 08/818,964, is involved in each of the eight related                       
             interferences.                                                                                                     
                     3. The involved Kanzaki application contains eight essentially copied claims 7-14, one                     

             from each of eight different issued patents of junior party Sauer.                                                 
                     4. Each of Sauer's eight different patents is involved in a separate interference with the                 
             same Kanzaki application.                                                                                          
                     5. In this interference, claim 9 is the only Kanzaki claim which corresponds to the                        
             count, and the corresponding copied Sauer claim, claim 1, is the only Sauer claim which                            
             corresponds to the count.                                                                                          

                                                              2                                                                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007