Interference No. 103,636
the Japanese Kokai and a verification of translation, (2)
Storm's motion was unopposed on its merits and (3) the motion
is granted based on the showing made in the motion. In the
decision, Hong was ordered to show cause under 37 CFR §
1.640(d)(1) why judgment should not be entered against it
because the decision on Storm's motion for judgment under 37
CFR § 1.633(a) was dispositive of the interference. Not
having received a response to the order in
the time set, the Board issued judgment against Hong on March
27, 1997.
A copy of the Decision on Preliminary Motions was not
received by Hong. In a letter mailed April 16, 1997, the APJ
acknowledged that Hong’s copy had been returned to the Board
undelivered. At that time, the judgment of March 27, 1997 was
vacated, a copy of the Decision on Preliminary Motions was
mailed to Hong and the junior party was given twenty days to
respond to the order to show cause contained therein.
In response to the order, Hong filed a paper titled
THE PARTY HONG'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MAILED APRIL
16, 1997 (Paper No. 20), which paper falls within the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007