Interference 105,192 Paper 94
Stice v. Campbell
I. Introduction
The following findings of fact are supported by a
preponderance of evidence in the record.
1. As a result of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law set out in Paper 93 (Decision – substantive motions) of this
interference, Stice is not entitled to a patent to any claims of
its involved U.S. patent No. 6,235,970.
2. As a result of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law set out in Paper 93 (Decision – substantive motions) of this
interference, Stice is not entitled to a patent to any claims of
Stice reissue application 10/833,993, which is based on the Stice
6,235,970 patent.
III. Discussion
An interference is a proceeding to determine whether or not
a patent may be issued to an applicant based on an application,
all the claims of which are allowable but for the possibility
that another first invented the same subject matter. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(g). Cf. Case v. CPC Int'l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750, 221
USPQ 196, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[n]o interference in fact means
that there is no interfering subject matter, that Case's patent
is no impediment to granting CPC the claims of its application.")
Stice is not entitled to any of its patented claims
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007