Interference No. 103,352
Senior party Maeda elected not to cross-examine any of Khokhar's
declarants, and has chosen not to present any testimony or
exhibits of its own. Both parties filed briefs and appeared,
through counsel, at final hearing.8
No issue of interference-in-fact has been raised in this
proceeding.
We shall now address each of the aforementioned issues
seriatim.
I.
The Khokhar motion to reopen the testimony period was filed
on Sept. 20, 1995, the same day Khokhar filed its brief. The
motion was denied in an interlocutory order (Paper No. 48) issued
by an Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) on Dec. 19, 1995.
Khokhar did not request reconsideration of that order in
accordance with 37 CFR 1.640(c), or otherwise challenge the order
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.655(a) in its reply brief filed on Jan. 29,
1996. Accordingly, the motion to reopen the testimony period
stands denied and, therefore, we shall not consider the proposed
testimony of Sheryl Doran.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007