Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
ORDER
In view of the foregoing considerations, it is:
ORDERED that Stice has failed to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that it conceived an embodiment
within the scope of any of counts 4–6, which are all the counts
of this interference, before Campbell's constructive reduction to
practice;
FURTHER ORDERED that Stice has failed to establish, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that it reduced to practice an
embodiment within the scope of any of counts 4–6;
FURTHER ORDERED that Stice has failed to establish, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that it was diligent in its
attempts to reduce to practice an embodiment within the scope of
any of counts 4–6.
FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment is entered in Paper 124
which accompanies this decision.
FURTHER ORDERED that this paper be given an appropriate
number and placed in the patent file of U.S. Patent 5,945,577 and
in the application file of 09/650,194.
-29-
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007