Interference No. 105,05 8
Schaenzer v. Knight
nonobviousness is fatal. The board does not rubber stamp the wishful thinking of a party, even if
it is jointly wished by all parties in the interference, without sufficient supporting evidence and
legally sound rationale.
It is now time appropriate to enter judgment.'
Judgmen
It is
ORDERED that judgment is herein entered against junior party MARK J.
SCHAENZER, LORI G. SWANSON, GREGORY S. MOWRY, and LANCE E. STOVER;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party MARK J. SCHAENZER, LORI G.
SWANSON, GREGORY S. MOWRY, and LANCE E. STOVER is not entitled to its patent
claims 1- 15 which correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties should note
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.666;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be placed in the respective
involved application or patent of the parties; and
3 The decision on joint preliminary motion 3, ordinarily an interlocutory order, is
herein made final and merged with thejudgment, because it is rendered by a threejudge panel.
Per Trial Section precedential opinion in Charlton v. Rosenstein, Interference No. 104,148, 2000
WL 1568294 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000), the scope of review for a motion decision by a three
judge panel by the same panel is, in effect, the same as that of a request for reconsideration, and
there is no de novo review. In that connection, either party is free to file a request for
reconsideration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.658(b).
- 18
I
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007