A decision on preliminary motions was entered 18 April 2003. In our decision,
Yamagami was ordered to show cause why judgment should not be entered against it (Paper 91
at 35). In response to the show cause order, Yamagami filed a request for reconsideration of our
decision on preliminary motions (Paper 93). Yamagami’s request for reconsideration was
dismissed for procedural errors, without prejudice to file another request for reconsideration
(Paper 94).
On 20 May 2003, Yamagami filed a second request for reconsideration (Paper 95).
Yamagami seeks reconsideration of that part of our decision on preliminary motions in which we
(1) denied Yamagami Preliminary Motion 1 for judgment against Harari based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 1, and (2) granted Harari Preliminary Motion 1 for judgment against Yamagami on the
grounds that Yamagami’s involved claims are unpatentable based on prior art.
B. Discussion
A party requesting reconsideration of an interlocutory decision must specify with
particularity points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the
decision. 37 CFR § 1.640(c). A request for reconsideration is not a new opportunity to raise
issues which should have been raised during the preliminary motions period. Further, a request
for reconsideration will not be granted where the moving party merely disagrees with the
decision of the panel.
Yamagami argues that we overlooked or misapprehended Yamagami’s arguments and
evidence of record that Harari did not provide written description support for Harari claims 63
and 64 (Recon.1 2). In essence, Yamagami asserts that we did not consider that portion of
1 Recon. refers to Yamagami’s second request for reconsideration, i.e. Paper 95.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007