1 (3) Schembri has not sought the benefit of an earlier priority date.
2 (4) Having denied Schembri Motion 1, the only basis upon which Schembri
3 challenges Besemer’s entitlement to the June 7, 1995 priority date, Schembri
4 cannot prevail on the question of priority of invention as against Besemer.
5 It is therefore now appropriate to enter judgment against Schembri.
6 Accordingly, it is hereby:
7 ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1, page 4) is
8 awarded against junior party Carol T. Schembri.
9 FURTHER ORDERED that junior party Carol T. Schembri is not entitled to
10 a patent containing claims 20-26 and 30-35 (corresponding to Count 1) of patent
11 6,513,968 B2.
12 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in
13 files of application 10/619,224 and patent 6,513,968 B2.
14 FURTHER ORDERED that if there is settlement agreement, the parties
15 shall direct attention to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 41.205(a).
16
17
18 /Richard E. Schafer/ )
19 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
20 )
21 ) BOARD OF PATENT
22 /Richard Torczon/ ) APPEALS AND
23 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ) INTERFERENCES
24 )
25 )
26 /James T. Moore/ )
27 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
28
29
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007