LI et al.v.Chandler et al.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201812641201 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018) Copy Citation BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Filed: January 29, 2018 Tel: 571-272-9797 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Johnson Matthey PLC, Junior Party (Application 13/057,911 Inventors: Guy Richard Chandler, Neil Robert Collins, Rodney Foo Kok Shin, Alexander Nicholas, Paul Richard Phillips, Raj Rao Rajaram, and Stuart David Reid). v. PQ Corporation, Senior Party (Application 12/641,201, Inventors: Hong-Xin Li, William E. Cormier, and Bjorn Moden). Patent Interference No. 106,065 (SGL) (Technology Center 1700) Before: SALLY GARDNER LANE, JAMES T. MOORE, and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. LANE, Administrative Patent Judge. Judgment - Bd.R. 127(a) 2 In a decision on motions we held that claims 41-43 of the involved application of JM and claims 44-52 of the involved application of senior party PQ Corporation are unpatentable over prior art. (Decision, Paper 203, 51:10-12). Subsequent to the Decision an order was entered requiring junior party Johnson Matthey PLC (JM) to show cause why judgment should not be entered against it given that it does not appear that JM can prevail on priority in the interference. (Order to Show Cause, Paper 206). Thereafter JM filed a paper indicating that it does not intend to submit argument or evidence in response to the Order to Show Cause. (Response, Paper 208, 2). ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 3 (Redeclaration (Paper 205) at 2), the sole count of the interference, is entered against junior party Johnson Matthey PLC and inventors Guy Richard Chandler, Neil Robert Collins, Rodney Foo Kok Shin, Alexander Nicholas, Paul Richard Phillips, Raj Rao Rajaram, and Stuart David Reid; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 24, 27 and 30-43 of junior party application 13/057,911, which claims correspond to Count 3, are FINALLY REFUSED; 35 USC 135(a);1 FURTHER ORDERED that claims 41-43 of PQ Corporation and inventors Hong-Xin Li, William E. Cormier, and Bjorn Moden 12/641,201 are FINALLY REFUSED; 1 Any reference to a statute is to statute that was in effect on March 15, 2013 unless otherwise indicated. See Pub. L. 112-29, § 3(n), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011). 3 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to 35 USC 135(c) and to Bd. R. 205 regarding the filing of settlement agreements; FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into the administrative record of the involved junior party application and the involved senior party application; and FURTHER ORDERED that, if a party seeks judicial review, the party must file a notice with the Board within seven days of initiating judicial review. Bd. R. 41.8(b). 4 cc (via electronic delivery): Counsel for Johnson Matthey: Joseph Lucci, Esq. John F. Murphy, Esq. Baker and Hostetler, LLP Cira Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 Email: jlucci@bakerlaw.com Email: johnmurphy@bakerlaw.com Counsel for PQ: Michele C. Bosch, Esq. Christopher P. Foley, Esq. Louis M. Troilo, Esq. Clara N. Jimenez, Esq. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Email: Michele.bosch@finnegan.com Email: Christopher.foley@finnegan.com Eamil: louis.troilo@finnegan.com Email: clara.jimenez@finnegan.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation