1 Accordingly, it is
2 ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1 at 4) in the interference is
3 awarded against junior party JOSEPH SCOTT STAM, JON HAROLD BECHTEL
1
4 and JOHN KING ROBERTS .
5 FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to Stam claims 36-40 is awarded against
6 junior party JOSEPH SCOTT STAM, JON HAROLD BECHTEL and JOHN KING ROBERTS
7 FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JOSEPH SCOTT STAM, JON HAROLD
8 BECHTEL and JOHN KING ROBERTS is not entitled to a patent containing claims 36-40
9 (corresponding to Count 1) of U.S. patent 5,837,994.
10 FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 2 (Paper 1 at 5) in the
11 interference is awarded against junior party JOSEPH SCOTT STAM, JON HAROLD
12 BECHTEL and JOHN KING ROBERTS.
13 FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JOSEPH SCOTT STAM, JON HAROLD
14 BECHTEL and JOHN KING ROBERTS is not entitled to a patent containing claims 44-49
15 (corresponding to Count 2) of patent 5,837,994.
16 FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to Count 3 (Paper 1 at 5) in the interference is
17 awarded against senior party KENNETH SCHOFIELD, MARK L. LARSON and KEITH J.
18 VADAS.
The examiner of application 11/301,472 is directed to In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d1
1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) regarding the patentability of claims presented that are identical to claims
36-40 of the Stam 5,837,994 patent.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007