Liu et al. V. Liu V. Liu et al. - Page 2




                 that if Liu was no longer contesting inventorship, then there was no reason to continue the                                         
                 interference.                                                                                                                       
                          Liu’s actions are construed to be a request for adverse judgment.  Bd. R. 127(b)(1) and                                    
                 (4).                                                                                                                                
                          Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is                                                              
                                   ORDERED that judgment is entered against XIN LIU as to each count of the                                          
                 interference, i.e., counts 23 through 54;                                                                                           
                                   FURTHER ORDERED that XIN LIU is not entitled to a patent containing claims                                        
                                2                                                                                                                    
                 1 through 32  of application 10/376,845, which correspond to counts 23 through 54, respectively.                                    
                 (Paper 28 at 3-4);                                                                                                                  
                                   FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into the file                                       
                 of patent 6,316,002, application 10/757,722, and application 10/376,845; and                                                        
                                   FURTHER ORDERED that, if there is a settlement agreement, the parties are                                         
                 directed to 35 USC § 135(c) and Bd.R. 205(a).                                                                                       













                          2                                                                                                                          
                                   Claims 23 through 32 were added by an amendment (Paper 21) that was                                               
                 authorized by the APJ (Paper 20 at 3).                                                                                              
                                                                         2                                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007