1 On 27 June 2006, Paralegal Yolunda Townes spoke with Brian J. Walsh,
2 Counsel for Piddington, via telephone. Mr. Walsh indicated that Piddington is
3 abandoning the contest. Accordingly, it is appropriate to enter judgment against
4 Piddington. Bd.R. 127(b) (4).
5 Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
6 ORDERED that judgment on Count 1, the sole count of the Interference,
7 is entered against Junior Party, Christopher S. Piddington and Paul D. Bishop;
8 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party, Christopher S. Piddington and
9 Paul D. Bishop, is not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-15 of patent 6,521,233;
10 FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties
11 are directed to 35 USC §135( c) and Bd. R. 205; and
12 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Judgment shall be entered into
13 the administrative records of Piddington’s 6,521,233 Patent and Desnoyers’ 09/931,836
14 Application.
15
16 /Richard Torczon/ )
17 RICHARD TORCZON )
18 Administrative Patent Judge )
19 )
20 )
21 /Sally Gardner Lane/ ) BOARD OF PATENT
22 SALLY G. Lane ) APPEALS AND
23 Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
24 )
25 )
26 /James T. Moore/ )
27 JAMES T. MOORE )
28 Administrative Patent Judge )
29
30
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007