Interference No. 105,076
Uddenfeldt v. Sainton
On June 24, 2003, junior party Uddenfeldt filed a paper requesting entry of adverse
judgment against itself with respect to the subject matter of the sole count in this interference.
The request is granted.
It is
ORDERED that judgment as the subject matter of Count 1 is herein entered against
junior party JAN UDDENFELDT;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JAN UDDENFELDT is not entitled to its
application claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12-24, 26-29, and 31-35, 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 filed in the respective involved
application or patent of the parties; and
FURTHER ORDERED that upon return of senior party Sainton’s involved application
to the primary examiner, the senior party shall expressly bring to the examiner’s attention that
although the amendment submitted by party Sainton on April 2, 2003, to its claims 33-36, 38, 39
and 41 was authorized by the administrative patent judge to whom this interference was
assigned, the authorization goes to the filing of the amendment only and reflects no view
whatsoever as to the patentability of any amended claim under any section of the patent statute.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007