the parties agreed 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 11-30;
FURTHER ORDERED that XIN LIU is not entitled to a patent containing claims
2
1 through 20 of application 10/376,692, which correspond to counts 11 through 30, respectively.
(Paper 19 at 2-3 and Paper 28 at 3);
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into the file
of patent 6,468,542, application 10/756,748, and application 10/376,692; 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
Liu added claims 11-20 by an amendment (Paper 22) that was authorized by the
APJ. (Paper 20 at 3).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007