The opinion in support of the decision being
enteped today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper100
Filed by: Interference Trial Section Merits Panel
Mail Stop Interference
P. 0. Box 1450
Arlington, VA 22313-1450
Tel: 703-308-9797
Fax: 703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS M-A I LED
AND INTERFERENCES
JAN 1 3 2004
ELLEN MOSLEY, RAYMOND K. WHITBY PAT& TM OFFICE
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
and VERA OWEN AND INTERFERENCEIý
Junior Party,
(Patent 5,752,945),
V.
RICHARD N. DODGE, 11, CLIFFORD J. ELLIS,
CONNIE L. HETZLER, ERIC S. KEPNER,
SYLVIA B. LITTLE, LAWRENCE H. SAWYER
and CANDACE D. KRAIJTKRAMER
Senior Party,
(Application 09/314,492).
Patent Interference No. 104,781
Before: SCHAFER, LEE and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINAL JUDGMENT
During telephone conferences held December 22, 2003, and January 5, 2004, each of the
parties has acknowledged that their respective involved claims were unpatentable in light of certain
prior art. In light of these concessions, there is no apparent reason to continue this interference.
Based on the following findings of fact, we issue a final judgment against both parties.
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007