1 Board that Chandrasekher no longer intends to pursue its motions filed in this
2 interference, Chandrasekher Substantive Motions 1 and 2 (Papers 36 and 35
3 respectively). Chandrasekher Substantive Motion 1 sought to add two additional claims
4 to the interference and Substantive Motion 2 requested that Chandrasekher be accorded
5 priority benefit of earlier filed applications.
6 Chandrasekher’s request for adverse judgment concedes priority of invention to
7 Senior Party Liang and also agrees to entry of judgment that its involved claims, claims
8 1-13, are unpatentable as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
9
10 It is:
11
12 ORDERED that Chandrasekher Substantive Motions 1 and 2 are dismissed as
13 moot.
14 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Chandrasekher claims 1-13 of
15 Chandrasekher, U.S. Application 10/471,151 are unpatentable as indefinite under 35
16 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
17 FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 2, the sole count
18 in interference (Redeclaration, Paper 29), is awarded against Junior Party Chandrasekher.
19 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Chandrasekher is not entitled to a
20 patent containing claims 1-13 of Chandrasekher, U.S. Application 10/471,151, all of
21 which correspond to Count 2.
22 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in the
23 files of Chandrasekher U.S. Applications 10/471,151 and 11/690,915 and Liang U.S.
24 Patent 6,902,930.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013