Landers et al.v.Sapolsky et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 2, 2007

09404912 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2007)

Paper 76
Filed by:
Trial Division Merits Panel Entered: 2 May 2007
Mail Stop Interference, Madison East, Room 9D20
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria VA 22313-1450
Tel: 571-272-4683
Fax: 571-273-0042

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

JOHN LANDERS, BARBARA JORDAN,
DAVID E. HOUSMAN, and ALAIN CHAREST,
Junior Party
(U.S. Patent 6,703,228 B1),

v.

RONALD SAPOLSKY, ROBERT LIPSHUTZ, and
THOMAS GINGERAS,
Senior Party
(Application 10/942,479).
_______________

Patent Interference No. 105,439
(Technology Center 1600)
_______________

Before: ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT - PRELIMINARY MOTIONS - Bd. R. 127
Interference 105,439

2
The Board has entered a Decision on Motions in this interference. 1
(Paper 75). As discussed in the Decision, all of Sapolsky’s involved claims 2
fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. ¶ 112, 3
1st paragraph. Additionally, the Board has found that Sapolsky’s proposed 4
claims 58-62 (Sapolsky Contingent Responsive Motion 1, Paper 46), 5
likewise fail to comply with the written description requirement. 6
Accordingly, Sapolsky’s involved application lacks a basis to challenge 7
Lander’s priority of invention. Judgment is entered against Sapolsky. 8
It is: 9
Ordered that judgment on priority of invention as to Count 1, the sole 10
count in interference, is awarded against Sapolsky. 11
Further Ordered that Sapolsky is not entitled to claims 13-21, 24, 25 12
and 27-31 of U.S. Application 10/942,479, all of which correspond to Count 13
1. 14
Further Ordered that Sapolsky is not entitled to claims 58-62, each 15
of which was presented in Sapolsky Contingent Responsive Motion 1 (Paper 16
46). 17
Further Ordered that a copy of this paper be placed in the files of 18
Sapolsky, U.S. Application 10/942,479 and Landers, U.S. Patent 6,703,228. 19
Interference 105,439

3
Further Ordered that the parties’ attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 1
§135(c) and Bd. R. 205. 2
3
4
5
/Adriene Lepiane Hanlon/ ) 6
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON ) 7
Administrative Patent Judge ) 8
) 9
) 10
/Romulo H. Delmendo/ ) BOARD OF PATENT 11
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) 12
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND 13
) 14
) INTERFERENCES 15
/Michael P. Tierney/ ) 16
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY ) 17
Administrative Patent Judge ) 18
19
20
21
22
Interference 105,439

4
cc (via electronic mail): 1
2
Counsel for LANDERS (MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF 3
TECHNOLOGY): 4
PAT-lawrencegreen@wolfgreenfield.com 5
PAT-johnvanamsterdam@wolfgreenfield.com 6
7
8
9
Counsel for SAPOLSKY (AFFYMETRIX, INC.): 10
walterstr@bipc.com 11
phil_mcgarrigle@affymetrix.com 12