Furcht et al.v.Furcht et al. V. Furcht et al. V. Ho et al. V. Ho et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2014

10251685 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 214
Tel: 571-272-4683 Filed 26 September 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

TONY W. HO
GENE C. KOPEN, WILLIAM F. RIGHTER,
J. JYNN RUTKOWSKI, JOSEPH WAGNER,
W. JOSEPH HERRING, and VANESSA RAGAGLIA
Junior Party
Application 10/251,685 and 09/960,244

v.

LOE T. FURCHT,
CATHERIN M. VERFAILLIE, and MORYMA REYES,
Senior Party
Patent 7,659,118, Application 11/084,256, and Patent 7,015,037

Patent Interference No. 105,953 SGL
Technology Center 1600

Before: FRED E. McKELVEY, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKELVEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT

2

In view of our Decision on Motions (Paper 212) granting Ho Motion 2 (lack 1
of written description), it is— 2
ORDERED that judgment be entered against senior party 3
Loe T. Furcht, Catherin M. Verfaillie, and Moryma Reyes, as to Count 1 4
(reproduced in Paper 213) 5
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 124-129 Furcht’s involved application 6
11/084,256 be finally refused, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); 7
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-9 and 12 Furcht's involved U.S. Paent 8
No. 7,659,118 be cancelled, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); 9
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-5 Furcht's involved U.S. Patent 10
No. 7,015,037 be cancelled, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); 11
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Judgment and the Decision 12
on Motions be entered in the administrative records of (1) Furcht U.S. Patent 13
No. 7,659,118, (2) Furcht U.S. Patent 7,015,037, (3) Furcht application 14
11/084,256, (4) Ho application 10/251,685, and (5) Ho application 09/960,244; and 15
FURTHER ORDERED that a party seeking judicial review timely serve 16
notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 17
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 104.2.
1
18

NOTICE: "Any agreement or understanding between parties to an 19
interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, 20
made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the 21

1
This interference was declared on 26 June 2013. Since the interference was
declared after 16 September 2012, judicial review is limited to an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Biogen Idec Ma, Inc. v.
Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Civil No 13-13061-FDS (D. Mass.
May 22, 2014) (Memorandum and Order on Motions to Dismiss).
3

interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the 1
Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the 2
interference as between the said parties to the agreement or 3
understanding." 35 U.S.C. § 135(c); see also Bd.R. 205 (settlement 4
agreements). 5

4

Attorney for Ho:

Cynthia M. Bouchez
Thomas A. Haag
Fanelli Haag and Kilger, PLLC
cbouchez@fanellihaag.com
thaag@fanellihaag.com

Attorney for Furcht:

R. Danny Huntington
Sharon E. Crane
Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck, PC
dhuntington@rfem.com
scrane@rfem.com