UDDENFELDT v SAINTON et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2003

09392676 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2003)

1 Based on application 08/524,346, filed September 6, 1995. The real party in interest
is Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson.
2 Filed September 8, 1999. Accorded the benefit of application 08/709,112, filed
September 6, 1996, now Patent 5,761,621; and application 08/167,002, filed December 15, 1993.
The real party in interest is MLR, LLC.
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Filed by: Merits Panel Paper No. 36
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
_______________
JAN UDDENFELDT
Junior Party,
(Patent 5,805,633)1
v.
JOSEPH B. SAINTON, CHARLES M. LEEDOM, Jr.,
and ERIC J. ROBINSON
Senior Party
(Application 09/392,676)2
_______________
Patent Interference No. 105,076
_______________
Before LEE, SCHAFER, MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Judgment
Interference No. 105,076
Uddenfeldt v. Sainton
- 2 -
On June 24, 2003, junior party Uddenfeldt filed a paper requesting entry of adverse
judgment against itself with respect to the subject matter of the sole count in this interference.
The request is granted.
It is
ORDERED that judgment as the subject matter of Count 1 is herein entered against
junior party JAN UDDENFELDT;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JAN UDDENFELDT is not entitled to its
application claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12-24, 26-29, and 31-35, which correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties should note
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.666;
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be filed in the respective involved
application or patent of the parties; and
FURTHER ORDERED that upon return of senior party Sainton’s involved application
to the primary examiner, the senior party shall expressly bring to the examiner’s attention that
although the amendment submitted by party Sainton on April 2, 2003, to its claims 33-36, 38, 39
and 41 was authorized by the administrative patent judge to whom this interference was
assigned, the authorization goes to the filing of the amendment only and reflects no view
whatsoever as to the patentability of any amended claim under any section of the patent statute.
Interference No. 105,076
Uddenfeldt v. Sainton
- 3 -

Jameson Lee )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Richard E. Schafer ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Sally C. Medley )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Interference No. 105,076
Uddenfeldt v. Sainton
- 4 -
By Facsimile:
Attorney for junior party UDDENFELDT:
703-415-0013 (Fax)
Richard Neifeld, Esq.
2001 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 1001
Arlington, Virginia
Attorney for senior party SAINTON:
202-783-6031 (Fax)
Martin M. Zoltick, Esq.
Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005