Thomas et al.v.Pippin V. Thomas et al. V. Thomas et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

11524806 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 074
571-272-4683 Filed: September 19, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_________________

C. DOUGLASS THOMAS and ALAN E. THOMAS
Junior Party
(U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,167,993; 7,293,186; and 7,418,611)1

v.

JACK D. PIPPIN
Senior Party
(Application 10/464,482)2
_________________

Patent Interference No. 105,803 (JL)
(Technology Center 2100)
_________________

Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,167,993, 7,293,186, and 7,418,611 were accorded the benefit of
patent application 08/262,754, filed June 20, 1994—now. U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,011.
Paper 1. The real party in interest is IpVenture, Inc. Paper 15.
2 Filed June 19, 2003. Patent application 10/464,482 was accorded the benefit of
patent application 08/124,980, filed September 21, 1993. Paper 1. The real party
in interest is Intel Corp. Paper 9.
Interference No. 105,803
Thomas v. Pippen

2

Judgment – Merits – Bd. R. 127
In a concurrent paper, Thomas’s Motion 1 (Paper 27) seeking to designate
claims 20-29 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,167,993 as not corresponding to the count has been
denied. There are no other pending motions in this interference. Thomas also
indicated that as the junior party, it would not be filing a priority motion. Paper 23
at 2, 7. As such, Thomas concedes priority with respect to any claim left as
corresponding to the count after consideration of Thomas’s motion to designate
claims as not corresponding to the count. Id. Accordingly, because Thomas’s
Motion 1 has been denied and all of Thomas’s involved claims correspond to the
count, it is now appropriate to enter judgment against junior party Thomas.
It is ORDERED that judgment with respect to Count 1 is entered against
junior party C. DOUGLASS THOMAS and ALAN E. THOMAS.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-29 of junior party’s involved
U.S. Pat. No. 7,167,993; claims 1-17 of junior party’s involved U.S. Pat. No.
7,293,186; and claims 1-31 of junior party’s involved U.S. Pat. No. 7,418,611,
which correspond to Count 1, are cancelled.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall note the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd. R. 205.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered
into the files of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,167,993, 7,293,186, and 7,418,611, and patent
application 10/464,482.
Interference No. 105,803
Thomas v. Pippen

3

By Electronic Transmission:

Counsel for Thomas:

Richard A. Neifeld, Esq.
Robert W. Hahl, Esq.
Neifeld IP Law, PC
rneifeld@neifeld.com
rhahl@neifeld.com

Counsel for Pippin:

R. Danny Huntington, Esq.
William N. Hughet, Esq.
Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC
dhuntington@rothwellfigg.com
whughet@rothwellfigg.com