LIM et al. V. CAVENEY et al. - Page 11




          Interference No. 103,987                                                    



          consideration of the belatedly filed motion for judgment is                 
          DENIED.                                                                     


                           Motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)                             
                    Normally, since the miscellaneous motion for                      
          consideration of the belated motion for judgment has been                   
          denied, we would simply dismiss the belated motion for                      
          judgment.  However, in this instance, the impact of the Gentry              
          decision on the senior party’s claims has been fully briefed.               
          Accordingly, for completeness, we will consider the junior                  
          party’s motion for judgment.  Additionally, our comments on                 
          the motion for judgment shall serve as guidance to the APJ in               
          deciding the motions in the second interference.7                           




                    By way of background, Caveney discloses in his                    
          specification the embodiment that provides a conductive trace               
          for reducing crosstalk for each adjacent signal pair of                     


               7    Caveney is involved in the second interference with               
          the same application, which necessarily has the same                        
          disclosure in question here.                                                
                                          11                                          





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007