STOMP et al. V. Edelman et al. - Page 2




         1                Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is                                                               
         2                         ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 2, the sole count of the                                             
         3       interference, is entered against junior party MEIR EDELMAN, AVIHAI PERL, MOSHE                                                       
         4       FLAISHMAN, and AMNON BLUMENTHAL;                                                                                                     
         5                         FURTHER ORDERED that junior party MEIR EDELMAN, AVIHAI PERL,                                                       
         6       MOSHE FLAISHMAN, and AMNON BLUMENTHAL is not entitled to a patent                                                                    
                                              2                                                                                                       
         7       containing claims 1-8,  12-18, 21-30, 32, 36, 54-58, and 65-71, which claims                                                         
         8       correspond to Count 2;                                                                                                               
         9                         FURTHER ORDERED that, if there is a settlement agreement, the parties                                              
       10        are directed to 35 USC 135(b) and Bd.R. 205;                                                                                         
       11                          FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into                                                 
       12        the administrative records of Edelman’s 09/529,172 application and Stomp’s 6,040,498                                                 
       13        patent.                                                                                                                              
       14                                                                                                                                             
       15                                                                                                                                             
       16                                           /Romulo H. Delmendo/                         )                                                    
       17                                           Administrative Patent Judge                  )                                                    
       18                                                                                        )    BOARD OF PATENT                                 
       19                                           /Sally Gardner Lane/                         )         APPEALS AND                                
       20                                           Administrative Patent Judge                  )    INTERFERENCES                                   
       21                                                                                        )                                                    
       22                                           /James T. Moore/                             )                                                    
       23                                           Administrative Patent Judge                  )                                                    
       24                                                                                                                                             
       25                                                                                                                                             
       26                                                                                                                                             

                          2                                                                                                                           
                                   The examiner has indicated that claim 3 is not patentable to Edelman on another basis as                           
                 well (See Form 850, attached to Paper 1).                                                                                            
                                                                         -2-                                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007