Interference No. 104,068
Sink to show not only a delay in prosecution of the senior
par-Ity's series of co-pending applications but, also, that the
delay was an unreasonable delay attributable to the senior party.
In this regard, we note that the parent applications of Scott et
a!. were subject to secrecy orders for over 20 years, a fact not
recognized or addressed in the arguments presented in Sink's
response.
The motion for testimony is dismissed since it fails to
satisfy the mandatory requirements of 37 CFR § 1.637(b).
For the foregoing reasons, judgment on the record is in
order and is rendered as follows:
Judgment
Sink has failed to show good cause why judgment should not
be entered against Sink. Accordingly, pursuant to the order to
show cause of February 14, 2003, judgement is hereby entered as
follows:
Judgment as to the subject matter of the sole count in issue
is hereby awarded to Scott et al., the senior party.
Accordingly, Sink is not entitled to his patent claims 1-2
and 5-9 corresponding to the count.
On the record before us, Scott et al., are entitled to a
patent containing their claims 12-13 and 16-20 corresponding to
3
ý,P
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007