Ex Parte PARE - Page 2




                  1. The Interference                                                                                                                                  
                            A. Background                                                                                                                              
                            This interference is between Patent 5,884,417 issued to Pard and Application 09/102,788                                                    
                  filed by Mengal. A schedule was set for filing preliminary statements, preliminary motions,                                                          
                  oppositions and replies. Paper 20. The schedule included times for cross-examining witnesses.                                                        
                  Each party has filed preliminary motions. No hearing on motions was requested.                                                                       
                            Pard has filed apreliminary motion assertingthat Mengal's involvedclaims are unpatentable.                                                 
                  Paper 40. We deny this motion. Par6 has also filed three motions requesting the benefit of the filing                                                
                  dates of two earlier U.S. applications and an earlier Canadian application. Papers 4143. We deny                                                     
                  these motions also.                                                                                                                                  
                            The parties have also filed preliminary statements. Pard's preliminary statement relies upon                                               
                  the benefit dates of the earlier U.S. and Canadian applications. Paper 32. Par6 does not otherwise                                                   
                  allege a date of invention earlier than the date accorded to Mengal. Since we have denied Pard's                                                     
                  motions for benefit, it is appropriate to award judgment on priority against Pard. In view of the                                                    
                  award of priority against Pard, it is unnecessary to decide Mengal's preliminary motions.                                                            
                            B. Findings of Fact'                                                                                                                       
                                     1. The Parties                                                                                                                    
                  F 1. Par6 is involved based upon Patent 5,884,417.                                                                                                   
                  F 2. Patent 5, 884,417 issued to J. R. Jocelyn Par6 (Par6) based upon Application 08/927,581,                                                        
                            filed I I September 1997.                                                                                                                  
                  F 3. The real party in interest of the Par6 patent is said to be Her Majesty the Queen, in Right of                                                  
                            Canada, as represented by the Minister of Environment. Paper 4.                                                                            
                  F 4. Mengal is involved based upon Application 09/102,788, filed 23 June 1998 in the names of                                                        
                            Philippe Mengal and Bernard Mompon.                                                                                                        
                  F 5. The real party in interest of the Mengal application is said to be Archimex, a corporation of                                                   
                            France located in Vannes Cedex, France. Paper 9.                                                                                           


                                     The findings herein are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Additional findings may be                                  
                  made in the Analysis portions of this opinion.                                                                                                       
                                                                              -2-                                                                                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007