It is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of Counts 1, 2 and 3 (Paper 1, p. 5) is
awarded against Junior Party, REDOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
FURTHER ORDERED thatjunior party, REDOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is not entitled
to a patent containing claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 (corresponding to Count 1); claims 2, 5, 9, 12,
and 16 (corresponding to Count 2); or Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, and 17 (corresponding to Count 3) of
Application 08/567,564;
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of Counts 1, 2 and 3, is
awarded against the senior party, DANIEL B. POURREAU, HAVEN S. KESLING, JR., FRANK
J. LIOTTA, JR. and JEFFREY M. McFARLAND;
FURTHER ORDERED that seniorparty, DANIEL B. POURREAU, HAVEN S. KESLING,
JR., FRANK J. LIOTTA, JR. and JEFFREY M. McFARLAND, is not entitled to a patent containing
claims 1, 4, and 5 (corresponding to Count 1); claims 2 and 6 (corresponding to Count 2); or Claims
3 and 7 (corresponding to Count 3) of Patent 5,371,298;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement and it has not already been
filed, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661; and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy ofthe DECISION ON PRELIMINARY MOTION (Paper
2 1) and this JUDGMENT (Paper 22) be assigned paper numbers and be placed in the files of Patent
5,371,298 and Application 08/567,564.
FRED McKELVEY
Senior Administrative Patent Judge
ýý !ý' scyo-'ý' BOARD OF
kICHý,Rffh. SCHAFER PATENT
Adminislrati've PItent ge APPEALS AND
INTERFERENCES
ffCHARD TORCZM
Administrative Patent JudgeT
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007