Lee et al.v.Voglewede

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2012

12133952 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

BoxInterference@uspto.gov Paper 269
Telephone: 571-272-4683 Filed: October 22, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

RONALD L. VOGLEWEDE
Junior Party
(Application 12/710,806)1

v.

WOOK YONG LEE, EUI YEOP CHUNG,
SEUNG HWAN OH, MYUNG RYUL LEE, CHANG HO SEO,
SEONG JAE KIM and SUNG HOON CHUNG
Senior Party
(Patent 7,628,032)2

Patent Interference No. 105,811 (JL)
(Technology Center 3700)

Before: JAMESON LEE, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and SALLY C. MEDLEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

Judgment – Request for Adverse – Bd. R. 127(b) 1

1 Filed February 23, 2010. Accorded the benefit of Application 12/455,433, filed June 1,
2009; Application 12/102,103, filed April 14, 2008, now Patent 7,793,690; Application
10/860,906, filed June 4, 2004, now Patent 7,455,085. The real party in interest is Whirlpool
Corporation.
2 Based on Application 12/133,952, filed June 5, 2008. Accorded the benefit of Application
11/835,561, filed August 8, 2007, now Patent 7,383,689; and Application 10/833,009, filed April
28, 2004, now Patent 7,316,121. The real party in interest is LG Electronics, Inc.
Interference No. 105,811
Voglewede v. Lee

-2-
On October 16, 2012, junior party Voglewede filed a paper enclosing an 1
Express Abandonment of its involved application 12/710,806. Per 37 C.F.R. 2
§ 127(b)(1), abandonment of an involved application such that the party no longer 3
has an involved application or patent in the interference is construed as a request 4
for entry of adverse judgment. The request is granted. 5
In light of Voglewede’s request for entry of adverse judgment, Lee’s Motion 6
1 for benefit, Lee’s Motion 2 for judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), Lee’s Motion 7
3 to exclude evidence, Voglewede’s Motion 2 to attack the benefit already 8
accorded Lee, and Voglewede’s Motion 4 to exclude evidence are all moot. 9
Voglewede’s Motion 1 alleging lack of written description support for Lee’s 10
involved claims was withdrawn by Voglewede. (Paper 265). 11
It is 12
ORDERED that Lee’s Motion 1 for benefit, Lee’s Motion 2 for judgment 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), Lee’s Motion 3 to exclude evidence, Voglewede’s 14
Motion 2 to attack the benefit already accorded Lee, and Voglewede’s Motion 4 to 15
exclude evidence are dismissed; 16
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 is entered 17
against junior party RONALD L. VOGLEWEDE; 18
FURTHER ORDERED that involved claims 21-38 of junior party’s 19
Application 12/710,806 are finally refused; 20
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall note the requirements of 21
35 U.S.C. §135(c) and Bd.R. 205; 22
Interference No. 105,811
Voglewede v. Lee

-3-
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into 1
the file of Patent 7,628,032, and Application 12/710,806; and 2
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of junior party’s Express Abandonment 3
of the Application 12/710,806 will be placed into the file of Application 4
12/710,806. 5
Interference No. 105,811
Voglewede v. Lee

-4-
By Electronic Transmission:

Attorneys for Junior Party Voglewede:

Paul R. Morico, Esq.
Paula D. Heyman, Esq.
Baker Botts L.L.P.
paul.morico@bakerbotts.com
paula.heyman@bakerbotts.com

Attorneys for Senior Party Lee:

Barbara Clark McCurdy, Esq.
Li Feng, Esq.
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
barbara.mccurdy@finnegan.com
li.feng@finnegan.com