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

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

09782680 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 071
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
(Patent Nos. 5,974,557; 6,216,235; 6,487,668)1

v.

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

Patent Interference No. 105,802 (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 Patents 5,974,557; 6,216,235; and 6,487,668 have been accorded the benefit of
Application 08/262,754, filed June 20, 1994, now Patent 5,752,011. The real
party in interest is IpVenture, Inc. Paper 12.
2 Filed June 19, 2003. Accorded the benefit of Application 08/124,980, filed
September 21, 1993. The real party in interest is Intel Corporation. Paper 4.
Interference No. 105,802
Thomas v. Pippin

2
In a concurrent paper, Thomas’s Motion 1 (Paper 29) seeking to designate
certain claims of Thomas’s involved patents 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 25 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, as
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 party
Thomas.
It is
ORDERED that judgment with respect to Count 1 is entered against junior
party C. DOUGLASS THOMAS and ALAN E. THOMAS;
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-47 of junior party’s involved Patent
5,974,557; claims 1-54 of junior party’s involved Patent 6,216,235; and claims
1-52 of junior party’s involved Patent 6,487,668, which correspond to Count 1,
are cancelled;
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall note the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd. R. 205; and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered into
the files of Patents 5,974,557, 6,216,235, and 6,487,668, and Application
10/464,482.
Interference No. 105,802
Thomas v. Pippin

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