Interference No. 104,652
Dunlap v. Fort
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of
the count is herein entered against junior party THOMAS F.
DUNLAP, KARL G. CHRISTENSEN, and ERIK O. ROE;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party THOMAS F. DUNLAP, KARL G.
CHRISTENSEN, and ERIK O. ROE is not entitled to a patent
containing their application claims 54, 55 and 56 which
correspond to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper be filed in the
respective involved application and patent of the parties;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is any agreement concerning
the termination of this interference, attention is directed to
35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661; and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the paper entitled “Notice of
Cancellation and Abandonment,” evidently intended for the junior
party’s involved application 08/861,257 and attached to the
junior party’s request for entry of adverse judgment, is placed
in the application, and that it is party Dunlap’s responsibility,
upon return of the application to the primary examiner, to bring
that matter to the attention of the examiner.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007