Interference No. 104,147 Page 2
The parties have filed a "Joint Motion 2 Pursuant To 37 CFR 1.633(b)" seeking
"judgment that no interference-in-fact exists between the designated claims of the
parties," Paper No. 165, p. 12. Consistent with the granting of this motion and finding
that no interference-in-fact exists (see "Decision on Joint Motions 1 and 2," Paper
No. 168), we now enter judgment in this interference pursuant to our authority under
37 CFR § 1.658(a).
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that judgment is awarded in favor of both junior party Klein and
senior party Burnette.
FURTHER ORDERED that Burnette, the senior party, is entitled to Claims 9, 11,
12, 15, 17-19, 21, 25 and 35 of his Application 08/448,727, filed May 24, 1995.
FURTHER ORDERED that Klein et al., the junior party, is entitled to Claims 1-4
of their U.S. Patent No. 5,244,657, granted September 14, 1993.
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is any settlement agreement which has not
been filed, then attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135 and 37 CFR § 1.661.
Burnette Application 08/448,727 will now be forwarded to the Examiner in
charge for further prosecution not inconsistent with this decision. In that regard, we
advise the Examiner to review the Decision on Motions, Paper No. 144, especially
pages 21-31, on questions of patentability of Burnette's claims raised during the
interference proceeding. Some of those questions remain unanswered as of the
Decision on Motions. In particular, the Examiner should consider whether Burnette
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007