1 present in a pending U.S. application, a determination as to the patentability of Johnson’s claims
2 is best resolved by an examiner outside the course of this interference. Accordingly, we exercise
3 our discretion and recommend that the examiner of Johnson’s involved U.S. Application No.
4 09/485,512 review the issues raised in Reddy Motions 2 and 3, and recommend that the examiner
5 enter any rejection deemed necessary. Bd. R. 127(c) and In re Sullivan, 362 F.3d 1324, 1327, 70
6 USPQ2d 1145, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
7 Johnson Motion 2 seeks to amend Johnson’s involved claims in response to Reddy
8 Motions 2 and 3. As we do not reach the merits of Reddy Motions 2 and 3, Johnson Motion 2 is
2
9 dismissed as moot.
10 It is:
11 ORDERED that judgment on priority of invention as to Counts 1 and 2, the only counts
12 in interference, is awarded against Junior Party Reddy.
13 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Reddy is not entitled to a patent containing
14 claims 13-14, 16-19, 21-28, 30-40 and 43-44 of Reddy, U.S. Patent No. 6,492,343, all of which
15 correspond to Count 1.
16 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Reddy is not entitled to a patent containing
17 claims 13-14, 16-19, 22-28, 31-40 and 43-44 of Reddy, U.S. Patent No. 6,492,343, all of which
18 correspond to Count 2.
19
2Additionally, we note that Johnson Motion 2 does not identify where Johnson received authorization from the Board to
file this particular responsive motion and a brief review of the record failed to reveal such authorization. As Johnson
Motion 2 is dismissed as moot, we need not consider whether or not the filing of this particular motion was authorized by
the Board.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007