MANZO et al. V. OGATA et al. - Page 2

               The interference was declared on November 4, 1996,                     
          upon entry of a NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE (Paper No. 1).                
          Thereafter, on November 6, 1996, an ORDER (Paper No. 2) was                 
          entered suggesting that the Ogata application involved in the               
          interference may be abandoned.  Ogata was given a period of time            
          to express his views on the issue of abandonment.  Ultimately, a            
          merits panel of the board entered an order holding that the Ogata           
          application had become abandoned.  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER             
          (Paper No. 25) entered January 22, 1997.                                    
               In response to the ORDER, Ogata had filed a petition to                
          revive the Ogata application contingent on the board concluding             
          that the application had become abandoned.  On January 22, 1997,            
          an order was entered in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner            
          for Patents granting Ogata's petition to revive (Paper No. 26).             
               On January 22, 1997, an ORDER REDECLARING INTERFERENCE                 
          (Paper No. 27) was entered.  Pursuant to the ORDER REDECLARING              
          INTERFERENCE, the interference was declared on the same terms as            
          those set out in the NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE (Paper No. 1).           
               A time was set for filing preliminary statements.  Manzo,              
          the junior party, did not file a preliminary statement.  Rather,            
          Manzo filed a COMMUNICATION (Paper No. 38) in which the following           
                         No responses are being made to any of the                    
                    papers that were filed in the above interference,                 
                    because it is patentees Manzo et al's position                    
                                        - 2 -                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007