The joint preliminary motion also sets forth and discusses
the differences between the Moore and Sundholm claims and the
prior art known by the parties, and presents a sufficient
analysis of why no one claim of Sundholm’s in view of the cited
prior art, would render obvious any one of Moore’s claims.
The joint preliminary motion is granted. Since there is no
interference-in-fact between any one of Moore’s claims and any
one of Sundholm’s remaining claims, all other preliminary motions
filed during the interference are dismissed.
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that the “JOINT RULE 633(b) PRELIMINARY MOTION (for
judgment of no interference-in-fact)” is granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that Moore preliminary motions 1-6 and
Sundholm preliminary motions 1-4 are dismissed;
FURTHER ORDERED that Moore claim 12 be cancelled2;
FURTHER ORDERED that in view of the three-judge merits panel
decision that there is no interference-in-fact, final judgment is
entered that there is no interference-in-fact between (1) Moore
claims 1-10 and (2) Sundholm claims 6, 10, 13, 14 and 17-24;
FURTHER ORDERED that the subject matter of Moore claims 1-10
is no impediment under the law to the issuance of a patent to
Sundholm;
2 The examiner shall enter the amendment filed by Moore, cancelling Moore
claim 12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007