SIBNER v. GILBERT - Page 3




                        9. The claims of the parties which correspond to Count 1 are:                                                    
                                Sibner (5,766,011):             1-21                                                                     
                                Sibner (09/114,166):            1-34                                                                     
                                Gilbert:                        1-3, 5-16 and 18-23                                                      
                        10.  The claims of the parties which do not correspond to Count 1 are:                                           
                                Sibner (5,766,011):             none                                                                     
                                Sibner (09/114,166):            none                                                                     
                                Gilbert:                        none                                                                     

                        11.  Sibner real party in interest is Jeffrey A. Sibner (Paper 10).                                              
                        12.  At the time the interference was declared, Gilbert’s real party in interest was Discus                      
                Dental Impressions, Inc. (Discus Dental) (Paper 6).                                                                      
                        13.  The times for filing preliminary motions and preliminary statements were set on                             
                December 17, 2002.                                                                                                       
                        14.  Per that order, the last time for taking action (time period 8) during the preliminary                      
                motions phase was set for September 22, 2003 (Paper 14).                                                                 
                        15.  Counsel for the respective parties represented to the administrative patent judge                           
                (APJ), during various conference calls, that the parties intended to settle the interference1.                           
                        16.  No papers were filed during the approximately nine month preliminary motions                                
                period.                                                                                                                  
                        17.  On 2 October 2003, the APJ ordered Sibner to show cause why judgment should not                             
                be entered against it (Paper 17).                                                                                        



                        1  Conference calls were held on at least the following dates: 25 February 2003, 5 March                         
                2003, 2 July 2003, and 31 July 2003.                                                                                     
                                                                   3                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007