GUAYv.HUNTDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 19, 200007293960 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2000) Copy Citation 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opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation