1. Back2round
A conference call was held on 5 June 2002. The following participated:
(1) Sally Gardner-Lane, Administrative Patent Judge
(2) Talivaldis Cepuritis for Sherf
(3) Steve Kelber for Bronstein
The purpose of the conference call was to discuss whether the interference should
continue given the decision on preliminary and other motions (Paper 74). In the decision, both
involved Sherf claims were held to be unpatentable to Sherf (Paper 74 at 18 and 29).
During the call, both parties agreed that the interference should not continue. Counsel for
Sherf indicated that Sherf did not wish to present a priority case and agreed that judgment that
Sherf s involved claims are not patentable to Sherf would be appropriate.
In an order entered 10 May 2002 (Paper 22), and with agreement of the parties, Sherf
preliminary motion 5 was deferred until the priority phase of the interference. Therefore, Sherf
preliminary motion 5 has not been decided. In Sherf preliminary motion 5, Sherf moves for
judgment that the claims of Bronstein's '787 application are unpatentable on the basis that
Bronstein failed to comply with 37 CFR § 1.56 (inequitable conduct) (Paper 33).
Ii. Discussion
Given the circumstances before us and Sherf s indication that it does not wish to continue
to a priority determination in the interference, it is appropriate to enterjudgment against Sherf
under 37 CFR § 1.662(a) and to dismiss Sherf preliminary motion 5.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007