LI et al.v.Chandler et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13057911 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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