09512967 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2002)

Ex Parte Pyne

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 22, 2002

09512967 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2002)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION AND IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE BOARD Filed by: Trial Section Merits Panel Paper No. 19 Box Interference Washington, D.C. 20231 Tel: 703-308-9797 Fax: 703-305-0942 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES CHARLES F. PYNE, Junior Party, (U. S. Serial No. 09/512,967, Patent Nos, 5,721,907and 5,446,888)1, V. JIM HARLAN and HENRY E. THOMAS, Jr. FAXED Senior Party, (U. S. Serial No. 08/593,477)' 10 222002 pAT. & TA. OFFICE Patent Interference No. 105,024 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS ANDINTERFERENCES Before SCHAFER, LEE, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judize. JudLymen 09/512,967, filed February 24, 2000. Patent No. 5,721,907, based on application 08/445,78 1, filed May 22, 1995. Patent No. 5,446,888, based on application 08/182,969, filed January 14, 1994. Accorded the benefit of the filing date of Patent No. 5,721,907, filed May 22, 1995, for Count 1. Accorded the benefit of the filing date of Patent No. 5,446,888, filed January 14, 1994, for Count 2. The real party in interest is LapLink, Inc. 2 Filed January 29, 1996. Accorded the benefit of Application 08/176,955, filed January 3, 1994, for both Counts I and 2. The real party in interest is Norton Lambert Corporation. Interference No. 105,024 Pyne v. Harlan The extended due date for senior party Harlan to respond to a show cause order against the senior party, issued on November 5, 2002 (Paper No. 14), has passed without the filing of any proper response from the senior party which places the senior party in compliance with all outstanding requirements in this interference. In a telephone conference call with the administrative patent judge on November 21, 2002, Mr. Edward J. Keeling of the law firm of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP confirmed that the senior party has not filed a response subsequent to the Administrative Patent Judge's communication dated November 13, 2002, which extended the due date for a response to the show cause order to November 19, 2002. Accordingly, it is now appropriate to cmerjudgment under 37 CFR Â§ 1.662(a) against the senior party for failure to prosecute the interference. It is ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of Count I is hereby entered against senior party JIM HARLAN and HENRY E. THOMAS, Jr.; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of Count 2 is hereby entered against senior party JIM HARLAN and HENRY E. THOMAS, Jr.; FURTHER ORDERED that senior party JIM HARLAN and HENRY E. THOMAS, Jr. is not entitled to its application claim 15 which corresponds to Count 1; FURTHER ORDERED that senior party JIM HARLAN and HENRY E. THOMAS, Jr. is not entitled to its application claims 16-20 which correspond to Count 2; - 2 - Interference No. 105,024 Pyne v. Harlan FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties should note the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 135(c) and 37 CFR Â§ 1.666; and FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be filed in the respective involved application or patent of the parties. Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge BOARD OF PATENT w eson Lee APPEALS 6kdministrative Patent Judge AND INTERFERENCES chard Torczon Administrative Patent Judgt /1) - 3 - Interference No. 105,024 Pyne v. Harlan By Facsimile Counsel for Senior Party Harlan: 650-326-2422 (Fax) Robert C. Colwell, Esq. Townsend and Townsend & Crew, LLP Two Embarcadero Center Eighth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3834 Counsel for Junior Party Pyne: 206-224-0779 (Fax) Bruce E. O'Connor, Esq. Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC 1429 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, Washington 98101-2347 4