Interference 103,781
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 - 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).
May 8, 1997 - Adang filed Adang et al.’s Contingent
Preliminary Motion 3 (Paper No. 47) whereby Adang moved for
judgment that Claims 3, 5, 39, 40 and 41-43 of Fischhoff’s
involved application are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) or
§ 103 over a prior invention of Barton et al. “if deposition and
documentary discovery [requested] should show that the claims are
not patentable to Fischhoff et al. in view of the possible prior
invention of Barton et al.” (Paper No. 47, para. bridging pp. 1
& 2). According to Adang (Paper No. 47, p. 1, para. 1):
-161-
Page: Previous 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007