until 11 November 2003.
29. Ms. Orzechowski informed the APJ that Gilbert was under an obligation to assign
the involved Gilbert application to Sibner at the time of the invention and that the interference
should be dismissed.
30. The APJ granted the request for an extension of time (Paper 24).
31. During the same conference call, Ms. Orzechowski explained, and apparently
understood that in response to the show cause order that Sibner, would:
(1) file a proposed amendment cancelling identical Sibner and Gilbert claims, and
cancelling Sibner and/or Gilbert claims that would qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
102(g),
(2) show, with evidence, that Gilbert was under an obligation to assign the invention, and
(3) file a terminal disclaimer for any remaining claims that would qualify as obviousness-
type double patenting prior art.
32. On 13 November 2003, the board received from the party Sibner a paper entitled
“Sibner response to order to show cause” (Paper 25).
33. The response refers to an attached “exhibit A”, which allegedly demonstrates that
Sandra Gilbert was under an obligation to assign the Gilbert invention to Sibner.
34. Exhibit A2 bears no signature.
35. Exhibit A is entitled “Confidentiality Agreement.”
36. The “confidentiality agreement” is apparently between Stardent International Labs,
2 None of the “exhibits” attached to the response are labled. We assume that the “exhibit
A” is the document placed under Tab 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007