Truglio et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2002

09083425 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2002)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
AND IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE BOARD
Paper No. 63
Filed by: Merits Panel
Interference Trial Section
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
JAMES R. TRUGLIO MAILED
and BRIAN M. McLAUGHLTN
Junior Party
IJAN 3 1 20
(Application 09/083,425)', PAT. & T.M. OFFICE
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
V. AND INTERFERENCES
EDWARD W. GAUGHAN,
and VINCENT F. TROIANI,
Senior Party
(Patent No. 5,746,484)2.
Patent Interference No. 104,683
Before LEE, SPIEGEL and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
JTJDG14ENT
Filed May 21, 1998. Accorded the benefit of Patent No.
5,967,620, based on application 08/708,984, filed September 6,
1996. The real party in interest is New York Air Brake
Corporation, a subsidiary of Knorr-Bremse AG.
2 Based on application 08/693,643, filed August 9, 1996.
The real party in interest is Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation.
Interference No. 104,683
Truglio v. Gaughan
,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. 58) mailed on
January 11, 2002, we determined that all of party Truglio's
claims corresponding to Count 1, i.e., claims 53-55, and all of
party Gaughan's claims corresponding to Count 1, i.e., claims
1-3, are unpatentable over prior art. We also determined that
all of party Truglio's claims corresponding to Count 2, i.e.,
claim 56, and all of party Gaughan's claims corresponding to
Count 2, i.e., claim 4, are unpatentable over prior art.
Entry of final judgment is now appropriate. It is
ORDERED that senior party EDWARD W. GAUGHAN and VINCENT F.
TROIANI (1) is not entitled to a patent containing its claims 1-3
which correspond to Count 1, and (2) is also not entitled to a
patent containing its claim 4 which corresponds to Count 2;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JAMES R. TRUGLIO and BRIAN
M. McLAUGHLIN (1) is not entitled to a patent containing its
application claims 53-55 which correspond to Count 1, and (2) is
also not entitled to a patent containing its application claim 56
which corresponds to Count 2;
3 See Paper No. 61 filed by Truglio on January 25, 2002
and Paper No. 62 filed by Gaughan also on January 25, 2002.
- 2 -
Interference No. 104,683
Truglio v. Gaughan
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.
A/meson Lee
(Aministrative Patent Judge)
BOARD OF PATENT
Carol A. Slý'Vge4 APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge) AND
INTERFERENCES
Sally C.,rmedley
Adminiserative Patent/judge)
3
Interference No. 104,683
Truglio v. Gaughan
By Facsimile and Federal Express
Counsel for Junior party:
202-289-1330
Perry Palan, Esq.
1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Counsel for Senior Party
412-562-1041
George P. Baier, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL, P.C.
301 Grant Street
One Oxford Centre, 2 oth Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
4