Interference No. 105,193
Ginter v. Benson
count. Neither party filed any such motion. It is now time appropriate to enter judgment
according to the priority decision of April 11, 2005.
In a telephone conference call on June 8, 2005, between Judge Lee and respective counsel
for the parties, the parties jointly requested a stay of entry of judgment in this case until judgment
is entered in a related interference (Interference No. 105,142) that also involves the two Benson
applications involved in this interference and even the same claims of the two Benson
applications that are involved in this case, among other claims. The parties would like judicial
review of the decisions in these two related interferences to proceed jointly and not in a staggered
manner. We understand the parties’ desire and concerns. However, it appears to us that the
appropriate course of action for the parties is to seek a stay of the first judicial proceeding, rather
than a delay of entry of judgment by the Board in this case. Accordingly, the request for a stay of
entry of judgment is denied, and it is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of Count 1, the sole count in this
interference, is herein entered against senior party GREG BENSON, GREGORY H. URICH and
CHRISTOPHER L. KNAUFT;
FURTHER ORDERED that the senior party GREG BENSON, GREGORY H. URICH
and CHRISTOPHER L. KNAUFT is not entitled to claims 30-32, 34-41, 44-46, 48, 51, 56, 58-
66, 68 and 69 of its involved application 09/164,606, which correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that the senior party GREG BENSON, GREGORY H. URICH
and CHRISTOPHER L. KNAUFT is not entitled to claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-17, 19, 22, 27, 29-37,
and 39-53 of its involved application 09/321,386, which correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties should note
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd. Rule 205;
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007