Interference No. 104,646 Paper139
SKB (Johnson) v. Rasmusson, now Rasmusson v. SKB Page 3
judge panel. It was proposed that the O.C. be vacated, that the Decision and the
Decision on Reconsideration be merged into a final judgment and that the hearing on
motions be deemed to be a final hearing for purposes of this interference proceeding.
It was agreed that a final judgment would issue on October 3, 2003 unless Rasmusson
brought any other unresolved matter to the Board's attention via a conference call
before 12:00 p.m. on October 3, 2003.
2. October 3, 2003
A second telephone conference call was held on October 3, 2003 at
approximately 11:00 a.m., involving:
1 . Carol A. Spiegel, Administrative Patent Judge.
2. Herbert H. Mintz, Esq. and Lara C. Kelley, Esq., counsel for SKB.
3. Robert L. Baechtold, Esq. and Daniel S. Glueck, Esq., counsel for
Rasmusson. Mr. Haiyan Chen was also present for Rasmusson.
According to Mr. Glueck, the aforementioned proposal was unacceptable to
Rasmusson because it felt required to file a final brief and request a final hearing in
order to have a "final" decision from the Board for purposes of appeal. Rasmusson
stated that it would brief and argue the same issues it had raised in RASMUSSON
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (Paper 127) for "final hearing," in particular the
granting of SKB preliminary motion 3 which stripped Rasmusson of the priority benefit
of its eight earlier filed applications. In other words, as pointed out by Mr. Mintz, no new
issues or arguments would be briefed and argued that had not already been briefed
and argued. SKB wondered what justification there was for expending any additional
time, effort and money on what has already been decided ("heard") and reconsidered
("reheard"). Neither Rasmusson nor SKB took any position as to priority. The sole
concern was whether any judgment which issued after vacating the O.C. could be
considered a "final" judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007