Sugamura et alv.Godfrey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2005

10323274 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2005)

Paper 32
Filed by Merits Panel
Administrative Patent Judge Filed:
Mail Stop Interference 29 September 2005
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria Va 22313-1450
Tel: 571-272-9797
Fax: 571-273-0042
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
KAZUO SUGAMURA,
KAZUKO MURATA, and NORIKAZU HIGASHIMURA
Junior Party,
(Patent 6,333,035),
v.
WAYNE GODFREY,
and EDGAR G. ENGLEMAN,
Senior Party,
(Application 10/323,274).
_______________
Patent Interference No. 105,275
_______________
Before: Torczon, Lane and Moore, Administrative Patent Judges.
Lane, Administrative Patent Judge.
Judgment - Request for Adverse -Bd.R. 127(b)
If a junior party fails to file a priority statement overcoming a senior party’s
accorded benefit, then judgment may be entered against the junior party absent a
showing of good cause. Bd. R. 204(a)(3). The time for filing priority statements has
passed (see Paper 21) yet junior party Sugamura has not filed a priority statement.
On 28 September 2005, Board paralegal Sonja Despertt spoke to Todd Walters,
counsel for Sugamura. Mr. Walters indicated that Sugamura does not plan to file a
priority statement. Given Mr. Walters’ statement, there appears to be no need to issue
2
an order to show cause. We treat Sugamura’ s failure to file a priority statement in
combination with Mr. Walters’ statement as a request for adverse judgment. See Bd.R.
127(b)(4).
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority is entered against junior party
KAZUO SUGAMURA, KAZUKO MURATA, and NORIKAZU HIGASHIMURA;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party KAZUO SUGAMURA, KAZUKO
MURATA, and NORIKAZU HIGASHIMURA is not entitled to a patent containing claim 1
of patent 6,333,035, which claim corresponds to count 1, the first of the two counts of
the interference (Paper 1 at 6);
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party KAZUO SUGAMURA, KAZUKO
MURATA, and NORIKAZU HIGASHIMURA is not entitled to a patent containing claim 2
of patent 6,333,035, which claim corresponds to count 2, the second of the two counts
of the interference (Paper 1 at 7); and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into
the administrative record of Sugamura’s 6,333,035 patent and Godfrey’s 10/323,274
application; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, if there is a settlement agreement, the parties
are directed to 35 USC 135(c) and Bd. R. 205.
cc (via electronic filing):
toddw@burnsdoane.com
bobm@burnsdoane.com
cabloomberg@jonesday.com
jbreilly@jonesday.com