Thomas et al.v.Pippin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

08262754 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 077
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. No. 5,752,011)1

v.

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

Patent Interference No. 105,801 (JL)
(Technology Center 2100)
_________________

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

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

Judgment – Merits – Bd. R. 127

                                                            
1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,011 is based on patent application 08/262,754, filed June 20,
1994. Paper 1. The real party in interest is IpVenture, Inc. Paper 14.
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 6.
Interference No. 105,801
Thomas v. Pippen

2

In a concurrent paper, Thomas’s Motion 1 (Paper 36) seeking to designate
claims 1-5, 8-24, and 29-32 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,011 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 31 at 2, 8. 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 1-32 of junior party’s involved
U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,011, 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. No. 5,752,011 and patent application 10/464,482.
Interference No. 105,801
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