Ex Parte Rhoads - Page 1




                                                 The opinion in support of the decision being                                             
                                              entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.                                        
                                                                                                Paper No. 145                            
                Filed by: Merits Panel                                                                                                    
                        Interference Trial Section                                                                                        
                        Mail Stop  Interference                                                  Filed                                    
                        P. O.  Box 1450                                                         May 4, 2005                              
                        Alexandria, VA 22313-1450                                                                                         
                        Tel: 571-272-9797                                                                                                 
                        Fax: 571-273-0042                                                                                                 
                                    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                             
                                                          _______________                                                                 
                                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                              
                                                       AND INTERFERENCES                                                                  
                                                          _______________                                                                 
                               SYDNEY GEORGE CHAPMAN and JULIAN HAMILTON JONES                                                            
                                                             Junior Party,                                                                
                                                          (Patent 6,216,228)                                                              
                                                                   v.                                                                     
                                                      GEOFFREY B. RHOADS                                                                  
                                                             Senior Party.                                                                
                                                       (Application 10/118,849)                                                           
                                                      ______________________                                                              
                                                       Interference No.105,209                                                            
                                                      ______________________                                                              
                Before:  LEE, MEDLEY and TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                           
                TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                     
                                             JUDGMENT - MERITS -  Bd. R. 125(a)                                                           
                                                         (Revised Judgment)                                                               
                        The Judgment (Paper No. 144) is vacated.  The Judgment itself did not identify those                              
                claims found unpatentable in the Decision on Preliminary Motions (Interference No. 105,209,                               
                Paper No. 143).  This Revised Judgment specifically identifies that Chapman claims 1-11 were                              


                                                                   1                                                                      





Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007