Interference 103,781
Barton et al.: Claims 1-4, 7, and 15-22
Fischhoff et al.: Claims 3, 5, and 39-43
Adang et al.: Claims 1-14.
December 12, 1996 - An administrative patent judge (APJ)
entered an Order to Show Cause stating (Paper No. 11, pp. 1-2,
bridging para.):
In view of the common ownership by Monsanto
Company of the Barton application and the Fischhoff
application, the junior party Barton is ordered
to show cause why judgment should not be entered
against him within 30 days from the date of this
order. Monsanto Company, as the assignee of both
Barton and Fischhoff, may name the prior inventor
in response to this order. Cf. M.P.E.P. 2302.
January 17, 1997 - The APJ ordered Monsanto Company “to name
the prior inventor of count 1 . . . . In the event Monsanto
makes no election, judgment will be entered against junior party
Barton” (Paper No. 29, p. 3).
February 3, 1997 - Junior Party Barton et al. (hereafter
Barton) petitioned the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.644(a)(1)
to reverse or postpone the APJ’s January 17, 1997 order (Paper
No. 35).
March 26, 1997 - Barton’s February 3, 1997, petition was
denied (Paper No. 38).
June 19, 1997 - The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (Board) entered the following judgment (Paper
No. 53):
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007