Interference No. 105,229
Davis v. Saito
counsel in a telephone conference call on October 26, 2004 (Paper No. 31) to have those claims
disclaimed but which disclaimer has not yet been filed;3
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;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be filed in the respective involved
application or patent of the parties.
3Entry of judgment against these two claims was discussed with respective counsel for
the parties in a telephone conference call on February 24, 2005. Counsel for junior party Davis
made no objection in light of junior party’s failure to file the promised disclaimer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007