Interference No. 105,529
McMahon v. Strand
1 DAVID J. MATTHEWS is not entitled to a patent containing its application claims
2 34 and 35 which correspond to Count 1;
3 FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties
4 should note the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd. Rule 205; and
5 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be placed in the
6 respective involved application or patent of the parties.
/ss/ Jameson Lee
JAMESON LEE
Administrative Patent Judge
/ss/ Sally G. Lane
SALLY G. LANE
Administrative Patent Judge
/ss/ Michael P. Tierney
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY
Administrative Patent Judge
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013