Interference No. 104,683
Truglio v. Gaughan
,Neither party seeks final hearing for review of any
interlocutory decision entered thus far in this interference.'
In a decision on preliminary motions (Paper No. 58) mailed on
January 11, 2002, we determined that all of party Truglio's
claims corresponding to Count 1, i.e., claims 53-55, and all of
party Gaughan's claims corresponding to Count 1, i.e., claims
1-3, are unpatentable over prior art. We also determined that
all of party Truglio's claims corresponding to Count 2, i.e.,
claim 56, and all of party Gaughan's claims corresponding to
Count 2, i.e., claim 4, are unpatentable over prior art.
Entry of final judgment is now appropriate. It is
ORDERED that senior party EDWARD W. GAUGHAN and VINCENT F.
TROIANI (1) is not entitled to a patent containing its claims 1-3
which correspond to Count 1, and (2) is also not entitled to a
patent containing its claim 4 which corresponds to Count 2;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JAMES R. TRUGLIO and BRIAN
M. McLAUGHLIN (1) is not entitled to a patent containing its
application claims 53-55 which correspond to Count 1, and (2) is
also not entitled to a patent containing its application claim 56
which corresponds to Count 2;
3 See Paper No. 61 filed by Truglio on January 25, 2002
and Paper No. 62 filed by Gaughan also on January 25, 2002.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007