1 FURTHER ORDERED that Reddy Motion 1 (Paper No. 29), attacking Johnson’s
2 accorded priority benefit date, is dismissed as moot.
3 RECOMMENDED that the examiner of Johnson’s involved application review Reddy
4 Motions 2 and 3 (Paper Nos. 30 and 31) and make any rejections deemed necessary to ensure the
5 patentability of Johnson’s claims.
6 FURTHER ORDERED that Johnson Motion 2, which seeks to amend Johnson’s claims
7 in response to Reddy Motions 2 and 3, is dismissed as moot.
8 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in the files of
9 U.S. Application No. 09/485,512 and U.S. Patent No. 6,492,343.
10 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of Reddy Motion 2, Reddy Motion 3 and Johnson
11 Motion 2 shall be made of record in the files of U.S. Application No. 09/485,512.
12 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties attention is directed to the settlement agreement
13 provisions in 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 41.205.
14
15 /Sally Gardner Lane/ )
16 SALLY GARDNER LANE )
17 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
18 )
19 )
20 /Sally C. Medley/ ) BOARD OF PATENT
21 SALLY C. MEDLEY ) APPEALS AND
22 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ) INTERFERENCES
23 )
24 )
25 /Michael P. Tierney/ )
26 MICHAEL P. TIERNEY )
27 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
28
29
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007