cancelled all of its pending application claims and has presented new claims 76-86
which do not interfere in fact with the remaining claims of the Richards patent. While
claims 76-86 shall be entered into Hartley’s 08/183,354 application, there has been no
determination made that these claims are patentable to Hartley. As we noted in our
decision on the joint motion (Paper 21 at 12),
Our decision to allow Hartley to add new claims to its application
should not be construed as a determination that these new claims are
patentable to Hartley. For example, we note that certain of Hartley’s new
claims, e.g., claims 82 [footnote omitted] through 86, appear to be of
broader scope than the claims involved in the interferences. These new
claims may be thoroughly examined upon the resumption of ex parte
prosecution. It is appropriate to return the Hartley application.
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that there is no interference-in-fact between claims 3-18 of Richards’
involved patent 5,427,929 and claims 76-86 of Hartley’s involved application
08/183,354.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is authorized to enter the Richards statutory
disclaimer filed with the joint motion (Paper 19 at Joint Exhibit 8).
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is authorized to enter the Hartley
amendment filed May 24, 2005 (Paper 20).
FURTHER ORDERED that Richards is not entitled to a patent containing claims
1, 2, and 19-21 of patent 5,427,929.
FURTHER ORDERED that Hartley is not entitled to a patent containing claims
47-53, 56-72, 74 and 75 of application 08/183,354, filed January 19, 1994.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007