Bath et al.v.Thompson et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2012

10842815 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 18
Telephone: 571-272-4683 Entered: 15 March 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Patent Interference 105,873 (RPG)
Technology Center 3600
____________________

JAMES N. THOMPSON, CLIFFORD H. RAY, GLENN D. FISSELER,
ROGER L. FYFFE, STEPHEN W. MITCHELL, AND
WILLIAM E. BOONE,

Application 11/037,031,
Junior Party,

v.

WILLIAM R. BATH AND FRANK SAYLE,

Patent 7,210,556,
Senior Party.
____________________

JUDGMENT – Bd. R. 127(a)

Before: FRED E. McKELVEY, RICHARD E. SCHAFER, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

2

On February 7, 2012, a Show Cause Order (Paper 3) was issued 1
against junior party Thompson, which stated that judgment will be entered 2
against party Thompson unless, on or before March 1, 2012, Thompson 3
shows good cause why adverse judgment should not be so entered. Upon 4
request by party Thompson, the time period was extended to March 8, 2012 5
in an order dated February 28, 2012. On March 8, 2010, party Thompson 6
filed a response stating in its entirety “As a courtesy to the Board, party 7
Thompson states that it will not be filing a substantive response to the Order 8
to Show Cause, and does not intend to file any other papers in this 9
interference” (Thompson Response to Order to Show Cause, March 8, 10
2012). In light of the lack of a substantive response, the Board understands 11
that junior party Thompson does not intend to contest this interference. 12
Thus, it is appropriate to enter judgment against junior party 13
Thompson, for reasons discussed in the Show Cause Order of 14
February 7, 2012. 15
It is 16
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 is entered against 17
junior party JAMES N. THOMPSON, CLIFFORD H. RAY, GLENN D. 18
FISSELER, ROGER L. FYFFE, STEPHEN W. MITCHELL, and 19
WILLIAM E. BOONE; 20
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party’s claims 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 21
and 127 of Application 11/037,031, which correspond to Count 1, and junior 22
party’s claims 1 and 2 of Application 11/037,031, which correspond to 23
Count 2, are FINALLY REFUSED; 24
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall note the requirements 25
of 35 U.S.C. §135(c) and Bd.R. 205; and 26
3

FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment shall be entered 1
into the file of Application 11/037,031, and Patent 7,210,556. 2

By Electronic Transmission

Attorney for Junior Party Thompson
(real party in interest Fairfield Industries Incorporated):

George E. Quillin
James F. Ewing
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20007
gquillin@foley.com
jfewing@foley.com
Telephone: (202) 672-5300

Attorney for Senior Party Bath
(real party in interest Saipem America Inc.):

Jeffrey J. Phillips
Gary J. Fischman
Winston & Strawn LLP
1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor
Houston TX 77002-5242
jphillips@winston.com
Telephone: (713) 651-2696