Stice et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2002

08781752 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2002)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
AND IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE BOARD
Paper No. 131
Filed by: Merits Panel
Interference Trial Section.
Box Interference
Washington, D.C. 20231
Tel: ?03-308-979V
Fax: 703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES FAXED
JAN 3 1 2002
GERALD R. SCHLOEMER,
Junior Party PAT, & T M, OFFICE
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
(Patent No. 4,736,453)1, ANDINTSRFERCNCES
v .
STUART W. THRO
Senior Party
(Application Oý/333,205)2.
Patent Interference No. 104,502
Before SCHAFER, LEE and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
Based on application 06/807,389, filed December 10,
1985. The real party in interest is Wireless Spectrum
Technology, Inc.
2 Filed April 4, 1989. Accorded the benefit of application
06/894,084, filed August 6, 1986; application 06/847,100, filed
April 2, 1986; and application 06/603,399, filed April 24, 1984.
The real party in interest is Motorola, Inc.
Interference No. 104,502
Schloemer v. Thro
Neither party seeks final hearing for review of any
interlocutory decision entered thus far in this interference.'
In a decision on preliminary motions (Paper No. 125) mailed on
December 31, 2001, we have determined that all of party Thro's
claims corresponding to the count, i.e., claims 28, 29, 32,
34-41, 44, and 46-51, as well as proposed new claims 52-57, are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 251 for adding new matter to
Patent No. 4,670,906 which Thro seeks to reissue through its
involved application 07/333,205. Entry of final judgment is now
appropriate. It is
ORDERED that senior party STUART W. THRO is not entitled to
a patent containing its application claims 28, 29, 32, 34-41, 44,
and 46-51 or its proposed new application claims 52-57;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment will be entered
in the respective involved cases of the parties; 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.
See Paper No. 130 filed by Thro on January 28, 2002 and
Paper No. 128 (Record of telephone conference).
2
interference No. 104F502
Schloemer v. Thro
Richard Z. SchAi f
Administrative Patent
Judge)
BOARD OF PATENT
i son Lee
APPEALS
inistrative Patent Judge)
AND
INTERFERENCES
t1ve F S a ly
Medley
Admini'sýtrMati Paten Judge)
3
Interference No. 104,502
Schloemer v. Thro
By Facsimile and Federal Express
Counsel for Junior party:
David M. Quinlan, Esq.
40 Nassau Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
609-921-8651
Counsel for Senior Party
Charles Gholz, Esq.
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1755 Jefferson Davis Highway, 4th Floor
Arlington, Va 22202
703-413-2220
4