Interference No. 103,141
However, this does not extend to including two patentably
distinct inventions in one interference count.
We have reviewed the denial of Sawada’s motion 1
anew, giving no deference to the decision in the APJ’s
interlocutory order. We have reached the independent
conclusion that the motion was correctly decided. The motion
stands properly DENIED.
The Failure of the APJ to Accord Benefit to Sawada with
Respect to Japanese Application No. 62-25224 as to Proposed
Count A
As noted above, Sawada Motion 1 to add proposed
count A to the interference was properly denied.
Consequently, it could
not have been improper for the APJ to deny Sawada benefit as
to a count never added to the interference.
The denial of Sawada Preliminary Motion 15 to Accord Sawada
Benefit of Japanese Application No. 62-25224 as to New Count
3;
After Judge Smith redeclared the interference adding
counts 2 and 3, Sawada filed Motion No. 15 pursuant to 37 CFR
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007