Interference No. 104,833
Page No. 3
requested that the Board decide those issues. Based on the specific facts of the case, the APJ
agreed to proceed to oral argument and to decide those issues raised regarding the proper count,
the patentability of Bries' involved claims, and the benefit Hazes sought to be accorded (Paper
I 10). That the APJ did so was solely within his discretion. That the APJ did so is not, in any
way, an indication that a future common assignee in the same position will be afforded the same
courtesy. Based upon the particular facts of this interference, we conclude that the A.PJ did not
abuse his discretion in continuing the interference. For these reasons, we exercise our discretion
to determine all of the preliminary motions filed.
B. Findin2s of fac
The record supports the following findings of fact, as well as any other findings of fact set
forth in the discussion portion of this decision, by at least a preponderance of the evidence.
The interLerence
I . The interference was declared between junior party Hans Hazes ("Hazes") and
senior party James L. Bries and Michael D. Hamerski ("Bries").
2. Hazes is involved in the interference on the basis of its 6,086,973 ( ...973 patent,
which issued from application 09/098,480, filed 16 June 1998.
3. Bries is involved in the interference on the basis of its 08/989,507 ( ...507
application, filed 12 December 1997.
PrioriU benefit
4. In the Notice Declaring Interference, neither party was granted priority benefit of
any earlier filed application (Paper I at 3-4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007