Interference No. 105,142
Ginter v. Benson
FURTHER ORDERED that party KARL L. GINTER, VICTOR H. SHEAR, FRANCES
J. SPAHN, and DAVID M. VAN WIE is not entitled to a patent containing any of its claims
which are designated as corresponding to Count 1 (i.e., Claims 91-93, 95-102, 105-09, 112-19,
120-22, 124-31, 134-38, and 141-48 of involved Application 09/411,205);
FURTHER ORDERED that party KARL L. GINTER, VICTOR H. SHEAR, FRANCES
J. SPAHN, and DAVID M. VAN WIE is not entitled to a patent containing any of its claims
which are designated as corresponding to Count 2 (i.e., Claims 94, 103, 104, 123, 132, and 133
of involved Application 09/411,205);
FURTHER ORDERED that party KARL L. GINTER, VICTOR H. SHEAR, FRANCES
J. SPAHN, and DAVID M. VAN WIE is not entitled to a patent containing any of its claims
which are designated as corresponding to Count 4 (i.e., Claims 110, 111, 139, and 140 of
involved Application 09/411,205);
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties should note the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Board Rule 205; and
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007