%
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today is got binding precedent of the Board.
Paper 125
Filed by: Richard E. Schafer
Administrafive Patent Judge
Box Interference Filed:
Washington, D.C. 20231 3 March 2003
Tel: 703-308-9797
Fax: 703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
FAXED
AND INTERFERENCES
VICTOR BRONSHTEIN, MAR 3 - 2ou
Junior Party, PAT. & TM. OFFICE
(Patent 5,766,520) BOARD OF PATENT APPEAL$
AND INTERFEMC99
V.
BRUCE ROSER and ENDA MARTIN GRIBBON,
Senior Party
(Application 08/923,783).
Patent Interference No. 104,727
FINAL JUDGMENT
A response to an order to show cause whyjudgment should not be entered against thejwiior
party was due on February 20, 2003. No response having been filed, it is appropriate to enter
judgment against the junior party, Accordingly, it is
ORDERED thatjudgment on priority as to the subject matter of Count I (Paper 1, p. 5),
is awarded against the junior party, VICTOR BRONSHTEIN;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party, VICTOR BRONSHTEIN, is not entitled to a
patent containing claims 1-14 (corTesponding to Count 1) of Patent 5,766,520;
Page: 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007