Background
The following papers were filed on 8 December 2004:
(1) A paper entitled "DIETZ-BAND NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT"
(Paper 56);
(2) A paper entitled “DIETZ-BAND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ADVERSE
JUDGMENT" (Paper 57);
(3) A paper entitled "GRAY REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS AND
OPPOSITIONS" (Paper 58); and
(4) A paper entitled "DIETZ-BAND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DIETZ-
BAND PRELIMINARY MOTIONS 1-8" (Paper 59).
It appears that the parties have settled the interference and now each wishes to either
withdraw (Gray) or have dismissed (Dietz-Band) the motions it has filed. Moreover, Dietz-
Band has requested adverse judgment on the basis that its involved claims are unpatentable
"under 35 USC § 102(b) over Cassell, M.J., et al., Hum. Reprod. 12:2019-2027 (1997) (Gray
Exhibit 1015)". (Paper 57 at 2).
An interference is declared to assist the patent examiner in determining whether an
application can be allowed notwithstanding a patent claiming interfering subject matter. If we
enter judgment against the involved claims of Dietz-Band, then the Dietz-Band patent is no
longer an impediment to the examiner allowing Gray's application.1 Thus, in these particular
circumstances, granting Dietz-Band's request for judgment against its involved claims is in the
interest of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the interference. Bd. R. 41.1(b)
1 Dietz-Band is junior party and thus is not 35 USC § 102(e) prior art to Gray.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007