3. Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge (“APJ”).
B. Relevant discussion during conference call
The principal purpose of the conference call was to discuss the parties’ settlement of the
interference. According to the parties’, both sides agreed that Junior Party Blease was not the
first to invent the subject matter of Count 1, the sole count in interference. Accordingly, Junior
Party Blease has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. 41.127(b).
Additionally, the parties agreed that a copy of the settlement agreement will be filed with
the USPTO in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §135(c) and 37 C.F.R. §41.205.
Upon consideration of Blease’s request for Adverse Judgment, it is hereby:
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the sole count in interference, is
awarded against Junior Party Blease.
FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Blease is not entitled to a patent containing
claims 14-29, all of which correspond to Count 1, of its involved U.S. Application No.
10/824,644.
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in the files of
U.S. Application 10/824,644 and U.S. Patent No. 6,590,030.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties attention is directed to the settlement agreement
provisions in 35 U.S.C. §135(c) and 37 C.F.R. §41.205.
/ss/ Jameson Lee )
ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
)
/ss/ /Michael P. Tierney ) BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ) PATENT APPEALS
) AND
/ss/ /James T. Moore ) INTERFERENCES
ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007