Interference No. 103,636
simultaneously rule on its evidentiary objection to the
Japanese Kokai and the merits of Storm's motion for judgment
because Hong was not given an opportunity to address the
merits after Storm's reply and after the Board's ruling on the
objection. The junior party contends that the APJ should have
decided the evidentiary objection alone and then should have
provided the junior party an opportunity to oppose the merits
of Storm's motion rather than rule on its merits
simultaneously. Hong then argues in its response that Storm's
motion for judgment is without merit and urges that judgment
should not be entered against it.
Hong no longer asserts an evidentiary objection to the
Japanese Kokai.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007