Griggs et al.v.Rose

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 1999

08585485 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 1999)

Filed January 16, 1996.1
Filed March 23, 1995.2
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 25
Filed by: Trial Section Merits Panel
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
_______________
EUGENE S. GRIGGS, JR., AND JOANNE HAYES
Junior Party,
(Application 08/585,485)1
v.
HOWARD L ROSE
Senior Party.
(Patent No. 5,492,077)2
_______________
Patent Interference No. 103,729
_______________
Before Schafer, Lee and Torczon, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIUM.
Judgment
A paper entitled “CONCESSION OF PRIORITY,” signed by the
senior party Howard Rose, and senior party’s lead counsel,
Interference No. 103,729
Griggs v. Rose
The paper is not accompanied by any certificate of3
service.
- 2 -
Alvin Blum, has been received. (Paper No. 13). Despite the3
caption on the paper’s top left hand corner indicating that
the paper is filed by junior party’s counsel for the junior
party, it is apparent that it is the senior party, Howard
Rose, who is conceding priority, based on the signatures on
the paper.
The paper states that the senior party Howard Rose
consents to entry of adverse judgment under 37 CFR § 1.662.
Accordingly, based on the concession of priority and consent
to entry of adverse judgment, it is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of the
sole count is awarded in favor of junior party Griggs and
against senior party Rose;
ORDERED that Howard Rose is not entitled to his patent
claims 1-17 which correspond to the count;
ORDERED that on this record, Eugene S. Griggs, Jr., and
Joanne Hayes are entitled to their application claims 1-6, 8-
9, 11, 13-18, 21-26, and 29-31, which correspond to the count;
and
Interference No. 103,729
Griggs v. Rose
- 3 -
FURTHER ORDERED that on this record, Eugene S. Griggs,
Jr., and Joanne Hayes are not entitled to their application
claims 19-20 and 27-28, even though they correspond to the
count, because these claims have been indicated by the
examiner as unpatentable.

Richard E. Schafer )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS
Jameson Lee ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
Richard Torczon )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Interference No. 103,729
Griggs v. Rose
- 4 -
By Facsimile and First Class Mail
Counsel for junior party Griggs.
603-228-0210
Robert H. Rines
Rines & Rines
81 N. State Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Counsel for senior party Rose:
954-832-0001
Alvin Blum
2350 Del Mar Place
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1510