Skalinav.Simon et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 2008

10864527 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2008)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 33
571-272-9797 Filed: 7 May 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

MICHAEL SIMON and ANDRE J. SKALINA

Junior Party
(Application 10/864,527)1

v.

ANDRE J. SKALINA

Senior Party
(Patent 7,015,948)2

Patent Interference No. 105,585 (JL)
(Technology Center 2600)

Before LEE, MEDLEY and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Judgment -- Request for Adverse -- Bd. R. 127(b) 1
This interference was declared on October 30, 2007, to resolve an 2
inventorship dispute between the parties. (Paper 1). There are Counts 1-3
29. As re-declared on December 13, 2007 (Paper 20), Simon needs to 4
prevail on only one count to render all of Skalina’s claims unpatentable 5

1 Filed June 10, 2004. The real party interest is Rohde & Schwarz, Inc.

2 Based on Application 10/116,112, filed April 5, 2002. The real party in interest is
SPX Corporation.
Interference No. 105,585
Simon v. Skalina

−2−
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). On April 23, 2008, Skalina filed an amended 1
request for entry of judgment with respect to each of Counts 1-29 (Paper 2
31), which replaced a previous request for entry of judgment dated April 22, 3
2008 (Paper 30). It is now time appropriate to enter judgment in this 4
interference. 5
It is 6
ORDERED that Skalina’s amended request for entry of adverse 7
judgment (Paper 31) with respect to each of Counts 1-29 is herein 8
granted; 9
FURTHER ORDERED that senior party ANDRE J. SKALINA is not 10
entitled to a patent containing its involved patents claims 1-29 which 11
correspond to each of Counts 1-29; 12
FURTHER ORDERED that patent claims 1-29 of senior party ANDRE 13
J. SKALINA’s involved Patent 7,015,948, are herein cancelled; 14
FURTHER ORDERED that Simon’s pending motion for judgment 15
against Skalina’s claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) is moot and herein 16
dismissed; 17
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the 18
parties should note the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd. Rule 19
205; and 20
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be placed in the 21
respective involved application or patent of the parties. 22
Interference No. 105,585
Simon v. Skalina

−3−
1
/Jameson Lee/ ) 2
JAMESON LEE ) 3
Administrative Patent Judge ) 4
) 5
) 6
/Sally C. Medley/ ) BOARD OF PATENT 7
SALLY C. MEDLEY ) 8
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND 9
) 10
) INTERFERENCES 11
/James T. Moore/ ) 12
JAMES T. MOORE ) 13
Administrative Patent Judge ) 14
15
By Electronic Transmission 16
17
Attorney for Junior Party Simon 18
19
Anthony M. Zupcic 20
Michael P. Sandonato 21
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO 22
30 Rockefeller Plaza 23
New York, New York 10012 24
azupcic@fchs.com 25
26
Attorney for Senior Party Skalina 27
28
Kenneth J. Sheehan 29
Raphael A. Valencia 30
Baker & Hostetler LLP 31
Washington Square, Suite 1100 32
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 33
Washington, D.C. 20036-5304 34
202-861-1500 35
ksheehan@bakerlaw.com 36
rvalencia@bakerlaw.com 37