1 FURTHER ORDERED that junior party TODD W. SEELEY is not entitled
2 to a patent containing claim 42 of application 10/084,700, which claim corresponds to
1
3 Count 1, the sole count of the interference;
4 FURTHER ORDERED that, if there is a settlement agreement, the parties
5 are directed to 35 USC 135(c) and Bd.R. 205;
6 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into
7 the administrative records of Seeley’s 10/084,700 and Yen’s 6,593,098 patent.
8
9
10 /ss/Sally Gardner Lane )
11 Sally Gardner Lane )
11
12 Administrative Patent Judge )
12
13 )
14 )
15 /ss/ Michael P. Tierney )
15 )) BOARD OF PATENT
16 MICHAEL P. TIERNEY
16
17 Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
17
18 ) INTERFERENCES
18
19 )
19
20 /ss/ James T. Moore )
20
21 JAMES T. MOORE )
21
22 Administrative Patent Judge )
23
1 The involved Seeley application contains claims 4 and 42. The Declaration is ambiguous in that it
indicates that Seeley claim 4 corresponds to Count 1 but also indicates that the claim does not correspond to
Count 1 and is not involved in the interference. (Paper 1 at 4). A review of the record indicates that claim 4
should not have been designated as corresponding to Count 1 (See, e.g., “Interference Initial Memorandum”
attached to the Declaration.).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007