`
`The oplnlon in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
`for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
`
`Filed by: Trial Section Merits Panel
`Box Interference
`20231
`Washington, D.C.
`Tel: 703-308-9797
`Fax:
`703-305-0942
`
`Paper No. 33
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`ERIC C. MARTIN,
`
`Junior Party
`(Patent No. 5,575,817) 1
`
`,
`
`v.
`
`MAILED
`MAR 1 0 1999
`PAT. & T.M. OFFlC!:
`GOARD OF P.ATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`ANDREW H. CRAGG, and MICHAEL D. DAKE
`
`Senior Party
`(Application 08/461,402) 2
`
`Patent Interference No. 10~,083
`
`Before McKelvey, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, Schafer, Lee
`and Torczon, Administrative patent Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`Junior party Martin has failed to serve its case-in-chief
`
`testimony on priority by the time such service was due, i.e.,
`
`Filed August 19, 1994.
`
`Assigned to Boston Scientific Technology, Inc. Accorded
`the benefit of European applications EP9440284.9, filed February
`9, 1994, and EP94401306.9, filed June 10, 1994. Also accorded
`the benefit of U.S. applications 08/317,763, filed October 4,
`1994, and 08/312,881, filed September 27, 1994.
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
`Exhibit 1017-1
`
`
`
`Interference No. 104,083
`Martin v. Cragg
`
`March 1, 1~99. Based on party Martin's failure to take
`
`testimony, party Cragg has filed a miscellaneous motion for
`
`judgment or a show cause order under 37 CFR § 1.652.
`
`In a telephone conference conducted at 2:45 PM, March 8,
`
`1999, between administrative patent judge Jameson Lee and counsel
`
`to the respective parties, Mr. Peter Davis, counsel to party
`
`Martin, indicated that the failure to serve its case-in-chief
`
`evidence was not inadvertent and that the junior party would have
`
`no objection to the Board's entering adverse judgment against
`
`party Martin on the basis that its case-in-chief evidence was not
`
`served. Accordingly/ entry of judgment against party Martin is
`
`now appropriate.
`
`It is ORDERED tha1:7 judgment as to the subject matter of
`
`count 1 is entered against junior party Martin and awarded in
`
`favor of senior party Cragg.
`
`It is ORDERED that Eric C. Martin is not entitled to a
`
`patent containing claim 1 of his involved patent, which
`
`corresponds to count 1.
`
`It is ORDERED that on this record, Andrew H. Cragg and
`
`Michael D. Dake are entitled to a patent containing their
`
`application claim 89 which corresponds to the count.
`
`It is ORDERED that upon return of party Cragg's involved
`
`application to the primary examiner, party Cragg shall inform the
`
`- 2
`
`-
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
`Exhibit 1017-2
`
`
`
`Interference No. 104,083
`Martin v. Cragg
`
`examiner of the administrative patent judge's decision (Paper No.
`
`20) granting party Cragg's motion to correct inventorship (Paper
`
`No. 16), and request that the correction, inclusive of the
`
`accompanying petition and amendment, be processed and entered in
`
`the official file of party Cragg's involved application.
`
`It is FURTHER ORDERED that in light of this entry of
`
`judgment, party Cragg's motion for judgment or an order to show
`
`cause why judgment should not be entered against party Martin is
`
`dismissed as moot.
`
`)
`Fred E. Mckelvey, Senior
`Administrative Patent Judge)
`)
`)
`
`. ,
`
`,.<./ _/.L ~ ;;_
`
`))
`
`~~--------~--~~~------
`)
`Richard E. Schafer
`Administrative Patent Judge)
`)
`)
`
`~~~
`
`BOARD OF PATENT
`APPEALS
`AND
`INTERFERENCES
`
`)
`~meson Lee
`~dmlnlstratlve Patent Judge)
`)
`)
`)
`~~~--~~~----~------)
`)
`Judge)
`
`- 3
`
`-
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
`Exhibit 1017-3
`
`
`
`Interference No. 104,083
`Martin v. Cragg
`
`Paul F. Prestia
`Ratner & Prestia
`Suite 301
`One Westlakes (Berwyn)
`P.O. Box 980
`Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482-0980
`
`Rob.ert J. Koch
`Fulbright & Jaworski
`801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`-
`
`4
`
`-
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
`Exhibit 1017-4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
