Clough et al.v.Brand et al. V. Clough et al. V.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2001

08600396 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2001)

Patent 5,346,902, granted September 13, 1994 based on Application 08/060,396 filed May 11, 1993.1
Assignor to Fungicidal Diazinyl Dioxime.
Application 08/440,128, filed May 12, 1995. Assignor to BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Germany. 2
Application 08/281,889, filed July 28, 1994. Assignor to ZENECA, Ltd.3
Application 08/114,991, filed September 1, 1993. Assignor Bayer Aktiengesellschaft.4
THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
and is not binding precedent of the Board
Paper 56
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
JOHN M. CLOUGH, CHRISTOPHER R.A. GODFREY
and PAUL J. deFRAINE,
Junior Party ,1
(Patent 5,346,902),
v.
SIEGBERT BRAND, UWE KARDORFF, REINHARD KIRSTGEN,
BERND MUELLER, KLAUS OBERDORF, HUBERT SAUTER,
GISELA LORENZ, EBERHARD AMMERMANN,
CHRISTOPH KUENAST and ALBRECHT HARREUS,
Junior Party ,2
(Application 08/440,128),
v.
JOHN M. CLOUGH, CHRISTOPHER R.A. GODFREY
and PAUL J. deFRAINE,
Junior Party ,3
(Application 08/281,889),
v.
HANS P. ISENRING and BETTINA WEISS,
Senior Party ,4
(Application 08/114,991).
_______________
Patent Interference No. 103,744
_______________
- 2 -
Before: CAROFF, PATE and HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAROFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
Whereas the junior parties, Clough et al. and Brand et al., have failed to file a response
to the Order to Show Cause of December 20, 2000 (Paper No. 51) within the time set
therefor, pursuant to that Order judgment is hereby entered as follows:
JUDGMENT
Judgment as to the subject matter of the sole count in issue is hereby awarded to
Isenring et al., the senior party.
Accordingly, Clough et al. (Patent 5,346,902) are not entitled to their patent claims 1-10
corresponding to the count and, also, are not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-3, 5 and
7-10 of their application 08/281,889 which correspond to the count.
Brand et al. are not entitled to a patent containing their involved claims 9-24.
- 3 -
On the record before us in this interference, Isenring et al. are entitled to a patent
containing their involved claims 40-41 and 47-50.
______________________________)
)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
______________________________) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
______________________________)
)
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 4 -
cc (via First Class Mail):
Attorney for CLOUGH (real party in interest
Imperial Chemical Industries PLC):
Marian T. Thomson, Esq.
ZENECA, INC.
1200 South 47th Street
Box Number 4023
Richmond, CA 94804-0023
Attorney for BRAND (real party in interest
BASF Aktiengesellschaft):
Charles L. Gholz, Esq.
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER
& NEUSTADT, P.C.
Fourth Floor
1755 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Attorney for ISENRING (real party in interest
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft):
Bruce M. Collins, Esq.
MATHEWS, WOODBRIDGE & COLLINS, P.A.
100 Thanet Circle, Suite 306
Princeton, NJ 08540-3662