Sauer et al.v.TAYLOR

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

14706142 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Filed: November 20, 2018
Tel: 571-272-9797

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

FRANK SAUER,
YEFENG ZHENG, PUNEET SHARMA,
and BOGDAN GEORGESCU,
Junior Party,
(Patent 9,747,525)

v.

CHARLES A. TAYLOR,
Senior Party,
(Application 15/183,341)

Patent Interference No. 106,093
(Technology Center 1600)

Before SALLY GARDNER LANE, JAMES T. MOORE and DEBORAH KATZ,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LANE, Administrative Patent Judge.

Judgment- Bd. R. 127(a)

Interference 106,093

-2-
Discussion 1
The only motion filed in the interference, Sauer Motion 1 seeking a 2
determination of no interference-in-fact, was denied. (Decision, Paper 40). The 3
parties indicated that they settled the interference and will not seek to file any 4
further motions. (Joint Notice, Paper 15; Settlement Agreement, Paper 18). Sauer 5
did not file a priority statement or otherwise provide a basis upon which it may 6
prevail in the priority determination. 7
After the Decision, we entered an order to show cause why the Board should 8
continue the interference under these circumstances. (Order to Show Cause, 9
Paper 41). The time for responding to that order, November 07, 2018, has passed 10
and Sauer has not responded to the order. 11
According it is appropriate to enter judgment against Sauer. Bd.R. 204(a) 12
(3). 13
Order 14
It is 15
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1, the sole count of the 16
interference, is entered against junior party Frank Sauer, Yefeng Zheng, Puneet 17
Sharma, and Bogdan Georgescu; 18
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-15, and 19-26 of junior 19
party involved patent 9,747,525, which correspond to Count 1 (Paper 1, 20
Declaration, 5), are CANCELLED; 35 U.S.C. § 135(a);1 and 21

1 Any reference to a statute in this judgment is to the statute that was in effect
on March 15, 2013 unless otherwise indicated. See Pub. L. 112-29, § 3(n), 125
Stat. 284, 293 (2011).
Interference 106,093

-3-
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be entered into the 1
administrative records of involved patent 9,747,525 and involved application 2
15/183,341. 3

Attorney for Sauer:

R. Danny Huntington
Jennifer B. Maisel
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
dhuntington@rfem.com
jmaisel@rfem.com

Jeffrey M. Weinick
Steven M. DiPasquo
CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI, P.C.
jweinick@csglaw.com
sdipasquo@cglaw.com

Attorney for Taylor:

Leslie Bookoff
Christopher Agrawal
Elissa Knoff
BOOKOFF McANDREW, PLLC
lbookoff@bomcip.com
cagrawal@bomcip.com
eknoff@bomcip.com