Spies et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 7, 2002

09356426 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 7, 2002)

1 Based on Application 08/819,983, filed March 18, 1997.
The real party in interest is Instrument Specialties Co., Inc.
2 Filed July 19, 1999. Accorded the benefit of
Application 09/097,033, filed June 12, 1998; Application
08/691,718, filed August 2, 1996; and Application 60/003,032,
filed August 25, 1995. The real party in interest is Parker-
Hannifin Corporation.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
AND IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE BOARD
Filed by: Trial Section Merits Panel Paper No. 39
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

ANTHONY M. SOSNOWSKI
Junior Party
(Patent No. 5,889,229)1,
v.
GEORGE H. SPIES, RICHARD A. HAMEL,
JONATHON MITCHELL, WILLIAM LIONETTA
and JAMES A. BRADLEY
Senior Party
(Application 09/356,426)2.

Patent Interference No. 104,657
_______________
Before LEE, GARDNER-LANE and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Judgment
Interference No. 104,657
Sosnowski v. Spies
- 2 -
On February 1, 2002, junior party Sosnowski filed a paper
entitled “CONCESSION OF PRIORITY BY JUNIOR PARTY SOSNOWSKI.”
In that paper (Paper No. 38), junior party concedes priority as
to the subject matter of the count and acknowledges the
concession as a request for entry of adverse judgment.
On the morning of February 6, 2002, a conference call was
held between administrative patent judge Jameson Lee and
respective counsel for the parties, Mr. Ronald E. Brown
representing the junior party and Mr. William G. Gosz
representing the senior party. During the conference, the
parties were asked by the APJ whether they desired review at
final hearing of any interlocutory decision entered thus far in
the interference, in particular the denial of junior party’s
preliminary motion 1 on November 1, 2001. Counsel for the
parties, William G. Gosz representing senior party and Ronald E.
Brown representing junior party, indicated that there is no
interlocutory decision for which they would like to seek review
at a final hearing. Accordingly, it is now time appropriate for
entry of judgment.
It is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of the count
is herein entered against junior party ANTHONY M. SOSNOWSKI;
Interference No. 104,657
Sosnowski v. Spies
- 3 -
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party ANTHONY M. SOSNOWSKI is
not entitled to a patent containing its claims 1-13 which
correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this communication will be
placed in the respective files of the parties’ involved
application or patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement,
attention should be directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR
§ 1.666.

JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
SALLY GARDNER-LANE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
SALLY C. MEDLEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Interference No. 104,657
Sosnowski v. Spies
- 4 -
By Federal Express
Counsel for junior party:
Gerald Levy, Esq.
Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, LLP
711 Third Avenue
New York, New York

Counsel for senior party:
William G. Gosz, Esq.
Ropes & Gray
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624