Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
Introduction
Junior party Spears initially filed preliminary motions 1
and 2. After dismissal of those preliminary motions, junior
party Spears filed, in their place, preliminary motions 3, 4 and
5. Senior party Holland filed no preliminary motion. Neither
party requested oral argument. None is deemed necessary.
Spears' preliminary motion 3 seeking judgment against all of
Holland's claims corresponding to the count is c1rante , but only
on the ground of anticipation over U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119.
Spears' preliminary motion 4 asserting no interference-in
fact is denied.
Spears' preliminary motion S seeking to designate its claims
8-12 as not corresponding to the count is denied.
Junior party Spears having failed to allege, in its
preliminary statement, a date of invention prior to the effective
filing date of senior party Holland, it is now time appropriate
to enter judgment against both parties.
Findings of Fact
1. This interference was declared on April 9, 2001.
2. Junior party Spears is involved on the basis of its
Patent No. 5,666,156, based on application 08/418,371, filed
April 7, 1995.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007