GUAYv.HUNT

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2000

07293960 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2000)

Filed March 13, 1990. At the time of declaration of1
the interference, the application was assigned to E. I. Dupont
de Nemours & Co.
Filed January 6, 1989. Accorded the benefit of2
application 07/249,385, filed September 26, 1988, now Patent
No. 4,922,337, issued May 1, 1990, and application 07/186,446,
filed April 26, 1988, now Patent No. 4,896,211, issued January
23, 1990. Assigned to Picker International, Inc.
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Filed by: Trial Section Merits Panel Paper No. 42
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
_______________
JEAN-LOUIS C. Guay
Junior Party,
(Application 07/493,011)1
v.
ROBERT P. HUNT
Senior Party.
(Patent No. 4,949,172)2
_______________
Patent Interference No. 103,709
_______________
JUDGMENT
Facts
Interference No. 103,709
Guay v. Hunt
- 2 -
1. On February 8, 1999, a decision on preliminary
motions was mailed. (Paper No. 24).
2. On December 28, 1999, the parties jointly filed a
notice of settlement in which it was indicated that the
parties’ involved application and patent are now owned by a
common assignee. (Paper No. 37).
3. On December 30, 1999, the parties were ordered to
identify the common assignee and the common assignee was
ordered to show cause why judgment should not be entered
against junior party Guay. (Paper No. 38).
4. On January 11, 2000, senior party Hunt identified
Picker International, Inc. as the common assignee and
indicated that it was unaware of any ground why adverse
judgment should not be entered against junior party Guay.
(Paper No. 40).
5. On January 13, 2000, counsel for the senior party
filed a further paper indicating that the communication of
January 11, 2000, was submitted on behalf of the common
assignee, Picker International, Inc. (Paper No. 41).
Discussion
Interference No. 103,709
Guay v. Hunt
- 3 -
Since the common assignee is unaware of any ground why
judgment should not be entered against junior party Guay, it
is
ORDERED that judgment is herein awarded against junior
party Guay;
FURTHER ORDERED that Jean-Louis C. Guay is not entitled
to his application claim 25 which corresponds to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that, on this record, Robert P. Hunt and
David L. Gilblom are entitled to their patent claims 14, 15,
18, 19, 20 and 21 which correspond to the count.

Fred E. McKelvey, Senior )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
Richard Schafer ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Jameson Lee )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Interference No. 103,709
Guay v. Hunt
- 4 -
Interference No. 103,709
Guay v. Hunt
- 5 -
By Federal Express
Counsel for the senior party
Thomas E. Kocovsky, Jr.
Fay, Sharpe, Beall, Fagan,
Minnich & McKee
1100 Superior Avenue, Suite 700
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2518
Counsel for the junior party
Herbert W. Larson
Larson & Larson
11199-69th Street North,
Largo, Florida 33773-5504