1 Lan is unable to contest priority of invention. Based upon the facts presented, we exercise our
2 discretion and decline to continue the interference. C.f., Noelle v. Lederman, Interference No.
3 104,724, Paper No. 89, Order Entering Final Judgment Against Noelle. Judgment is entered
4 against Lan.
5 It is:
6 Ordered that judgment on priority of invention as to Count 1, the sole count in
7 interference, is awarded against Lan.
8 Further Ordered that Lan is not entitled to Lan, U.S. Application 10/429,764 claims 1-6
9 and 8-33, all of which correspond to Count 1.
10 Further Ordered that a copy of the Decision and Judgment be placed in the files of Lan,
11 U.S. Application 10/429,764 and Pevarello, U.S. Patent 6,306,903.
12 Further Ordered that should there be a settlement agreement, the parties' attention is
13 directed to 35 U.S.C. §135(c) and Bd. R. 205.
\ss\ Adriene Lepiane Hanlon )
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
\ss\ Sally Gardner Lane ) BOARD OF PATENT
SALLY GARDNER LANE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
\ss\ Michael P. Tierney )
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013