STAM et al. V. SCHOFIELD et al. - Page 1




                Filed by: Merits Panel                                                                        Paper 125                  
                Mail Stop Interference                                                                                                   
                P.O. Box 1450                                                                   Filed 26 September 2006                  
                Alexandria Va 22313-1450                                                                                                 
                Tel: 571-272-9797                                                                                                        
                Fax: 571-273-0042                                                                                                        
                                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                             
                                                          _______________                                                                
                                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                             
                                                      AND INTERFERENCES                                                                  
                                                          _______________                                                                
                                       JOSEPH SCOTT STAM, JON HAROLD BECHTEL                                                             
                                                    and JOHN KING ROBERTS                                                                
                                                             Junior Party                                                                
                                                          (Patent 5,837,994),                                                            
                                                                   v.                                                                    
                                          KENNETH SCHOFIELD, MARK L. LARSON                                                              
                                                        and KEITH J. VADAS                                                               
                                                             Senior Party                                                                
                                                      (Application 09/441,341).                                                          
                                                          _______________                                                                
                                               Patent Interference No. 105,325 (SCM)                                                     
                                                          _______________                                                                
                Before: MARTIN, LEE, and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                           
                MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                     
                                             Judgment - Bd.R. 127(b) and Bd.R. 201                                                       
        1               As a result of the decision on motions it was determined that Schofield lacks standing                           
        2       (Bd.R. 201) with respect to Count 3 (Paper 119, pages 15-23) .  It was also determined that                              
        3       Stam’s claims 36-40 corresponding to Count 1 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 305 (Paper                               
        4       119, pages 54-57).  Stam’s priority statement fails to allege a date that is earlier than Schofield’s                    
        5       accorded benefit date with respect to Count 1 and Count 2.                                                               
                                                                  -1-                                                                    





Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007