for declaring this interference with Wakalopulos' claims and are new matter in the Bilstad
application, Bilstad lacks standing to prosecute this interference. We therefore enter final judgment
against Bilstad.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Additional
findings are made in the Analysis section of this opinion.
Background
I . This interferencewas declared March 30,2002, between Bilstad Application 09/294,964 and
Wakalopulos Patent 6,140,657.
2. Bilstad provoked the interference by filing an amendment adding claims 57-65 which were
copies of or based upon certain claims of the Wakalopulos patent. Bilstad Application
09/294,964, Paper 15, p. 13.
3. The interference was declared with a single count with Bilstad Claims 57-65 (the copied
claims) designated as corresponding to the count. The remaining Bilstad claims (1-17 and
34-56) were designated as not corresponding to the Count and are not involved in this
interference. Paper 1, p. 5.
4. During a conference call on May 24, 2002, Wakalopulos proposed filing a preliminary
motion asserting that Bilstad's Claims 57-65 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ý 1.
Paper 19, p. 2.
5. Because the motion was potentially dispositive, filing of the motion, opposition and reply
and cross-examination of witnesses were expedited. Papers 19, p. 2; Paper 23, pp. 1-2;
Paper 29, p. 1.
6. A separate schedule was set for the filing of other authorized preliminary motions. Paper 19,
p. 6 (Appendix).
7. Wakalopulos filed Wakalopulos Motion # I (Paper 21) on June 17, 2002.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007