Interference 105,004 Paper 18
DeBoer v. Gordon
motivation, or a reasonable expectation of success, to use the
WAP promoter recited in Gordon’s involved claims. Thus, we hold
that Gordon’s claims would not have been anticipated by, or
obvious over, DeBoer’s claims; in other words, the claims of the
two parties are not drawn to the same patentable invention.
Accordingly, we find, acting on behalf of the Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, that there is no
interference-in-fact.
II. Order
In consideration of the joint motion for no interference in
fact, it is:
ORDERED that the joint motion that there is no interference-
in-fact between any of junior party DeBoer’s U.S. Patents Nos.
5,741,957, 6,013,857, and 6,140,552, and senior party Gordon’s
application 08/246,259 is GRANTED;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be given
a number and entered in the administrative files of Junior Party
DeBoer’s U.S. Patents Nos. 5,741,957, 6,013,857, and 6,140,552;
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007