Yamada V. Gongwer et al. - Page 2






                         Accordingly, it is                                                                                                     
                                 ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1 at 4), the sole                                       
                count in the interference is awarded against junior party SHIGEKAZU YAMADA.                                                     
                                 FURTHER ORDERED that junior party SHIGEKAZU YAMADA is not                                                      
                entitled to a patent containing claims 1-6 (corresponding to Count 1) of U.S. patent                                            
                6,621,742.                                                                                                                      
                                 FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1 at                                            
                4), the sole count in the interference is awarded against senior party GEOFFREY                                                 
                GONGWER and DANIEL C. GUTERMAN.                                                                                                 
                                 FURTHER ORDERED that senior party GEOFFREY GONGWER and                                                         
                DANIEL C. GUTERMAN is not entitled to a patent containing claims 19-23                                                          
                (corresponding to Count 1) of application 10/804,770.                                                                           
                                 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in                                           
                files of application 10/804,770 and U.S. Patent 6,621,742.                                                                      
                                 FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, attention is                                          
                directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd.R. 205.                                                                                   


                                          /Jameson Lee/                              )                                                          
                                          JAMESON LEE   )                                                                                       
                                          Administrative Patent Judge  )                                                                        
                                                                                    )                                                           
                                          /Richard Torczon/                       )BOARD OF PATENT                                              
                                          RICHARD TORCZON  )  APPEALS AND                                                                       
                                          Administrative Patent Judge  ) INTERFERENCES                                                          
                                                                                    )                                                           

                                                                     −2−                                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007