Bronshtein v. Roser

_______________
_______________
_______________
_______________
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper 54
Filed by: 	Fred E. McKelvey
Senior Administrative Patent Judge
Box Interference 	Filed
Washington, D.C. 	20231
Tel: 	703-308-9797
18 December 2001
Fax: 	703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
VICTOR BRONSHTEIN,
Junior Party,
(Patent 5,766,520),
v.
BRUCE ROSER and ENDA MARTIN GRIBBON,
Senior Party
(Application 08/923,783).
Patent Interference 104,727 (McK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
(Decision denying Bronshtein Preliminary Motion 1)
A. 	Introduction
Bronshtein Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 22) seeks entry
of judgment of no interference-in-fact. 	37 CFR § 1.633(b).
Contingent on Bronshtein Preliminary Motion 1 being granted,
Roser Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 30) seeks to present amended
claims. 	37 CFR § 1.633(i).
A motions panel (Judges McKelvey, Schafer and Torczon) has
considered Bronshtein Preliminary Motion 1 and has unanimously
determined that the motion should be denied. 	The decision is

being communicated to the parties via this ORDER so that the
interference may proceed. 	A MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER making
findings of fact and explaining the panel's rationale in support
of the decision will follow in due course.
Times for taking other action during the preliminary motions
phase of the interference appear in an order entered concurrently
herewith.
B. 	Order
Upon consideration of Bronshtein Preliminary Motion 1 and
Roser Preliminary Motion 1, and for reasons which wil follow in a
separate opinion to be entered in due course, it is
ORDERED that Bronshtein Preliminary Motion 1 is denied,
with prejudice.
FURTHER ORDERED that the time for seeking
reconsideration of the decision denying Bronshtein Preliminary
Motion 1 shall be fourteen (14) days after entry of the "separate
opinion" to be entered in due course.
FURTHER ORDERED that Roser Preliminary Motion 1 is
dismissed without prejudice as moot.
Fred E. McKelvey
Senior Administrative Patent Judge
18 December 2001
Arlington, VA
- 2

104,727
cc (via fax and e-mail):
Attorney for Bronshtein
(real party in interest
Universal Preservation Technologies, Inc.):
Daniel E. Altman, Esq.
Brenton R. Babcock, Esq.
Mark R. Benedict, Esq.
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
Attorney for Roser
(real party in interest
Quadrant Healthcare (U.K.) Limited,
a wholly owned subsidiary of
Quadrant Healthcare PLC (U.K.):
Debra A. Shetka, Esq.
Thomas E. Ciotti, Esq.
Madeline I. Johnston, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
- 3