MAORv.LANGE

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2000

07998771 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2000)

Filed Dec. 29, 1992. Accorded the benefit of application1
07/755,649, filed September 6, 1991, and Israel application
96578, filed December 6, 1990. Assigned to General Electric
Company.
Filed November 8, 1993. Accorded the benefit of PCT2
application PCT/EP91/02045, filed October 23, 1991, and Danish
patent application 2577/90, filed October 26, 1990. Assigned to
General Electric Company.
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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
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
_______________
DOV MAOR,
Junior Party,
(Application 07/998,771)1
v.
KAI LANGE,
Senior Party.
(Application 08/150,020)2
_______________
Patent Interference No. 103,806
_______________
Before Schafer, Lee and Torczon, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Interference No. 103,806
Maor v. Lange
2
Judgment
On December 15, 1998, senior party Lange filed a paper
informing the Board that junior party Maor’s involved
application has been assigned to General Electric Company, the
assignee of the senior party’s involved application, and thus
the involved cases of both parties are now commonly assigned.
(Paper No. 13).
On December 24, 1998, the common assignee was ordered to
show cause why judgment should not be entered against the
junior party. (Paper No. 15). The paper indicated that a
proper response to the show cause order can be an election of
the junior party as the prior inventive entity based on
evidence available to the common assignee.
On June 8, 1999, party Lange filed a paper electing
junior party Maor as the prior inventive entity with respect
to the subject matter of the count of this interference.
(Paper No. 17). It is presumed that this election is filed on
behalf of the real party of interest or common assignee of
both party’s involved application, i.e., General Electric
Company.
Based on the election by the common assignee, it is
Interference No. 103,806
Maor v. Lange
3
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of junior party
Maor and against senior party Lange;
ORDERED that Kai Lange is not entitled to his application
claim 12 which corresponds to the count;
Interference No. 103,806
Maor v. Lange
4
ORDERED that on this record, Dov Maor is entitled to his
application claim 18 which corresponds to the count; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary statement of party
Maor is returned to party Maor.

Richard E. Schafer )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS
Jameson Lee ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
Richard Torczon )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Interference No. 103,806
Maor v. Lange
5
By Federal Express
Counsel to party Lange
Boris Haskell, Esq.
Paris and Haskell
2316 South Eads Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Counsel to party Maor
Michael J. Fink, Esq.
Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC
1941 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 22091
Interference No. 103,806
Maor v. Lange
6