each party requested that it be permitted to withdraw each of the deferred motions, but
for Cohen motion 7, that had been filed. Under the particular circumstances of the
interference, we GRANT each party’s request to withdraw of its deferred motions. As
these deferred motions have been withdrawn, we need not consider them further in the
absence of a contested contest.5
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 2, the sole count of the
interference, is entered against junior party JOHN GOODCHILD and PAUL C.
ZAMECNIK;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JOHN GOODCHILD and PAUL
C. ZAMECNIK is not entitled to a patent containing claims 17-19, 21-25, 27, 44-46,
48-52, 54-56, 58, 61, and 64 of application 08/346,270, which claims correspond to
Count 2 (Paper 125 at 3) ;
FURTHER ORDERED that the request of the parties to withdraw each of
the following motions is GRANTED:
Goodchild motions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 (Papers 33, 34, 36, 37 and 40,
respectively)
Cohen motions 3 and 4 (Papers 46 and 47, respectively).
5
In any event, the deferred Cohen motions as well as one of the deferred
Goodchild motions (seeking priority benefit of an earlier filed application) are moot in
view of the Goodchild concession of priority.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007