that the Ogata et al application stands abandoned
for more than one year.
In view of the fact that Manzo did not file a preliminary
statement, an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Paper No. 39) requiring Manzo
to state why judgment should not be entered against him was
entered on June 6, 1997 (Paper No. 39). Manzo timely filed MANZO
ET AL.'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Paper No. 40).
According to Manzo's response, the interference was not properly
declared given the abandoned status of the Ogata application on
November 6, 1996, the day the interference was declared. Manzo
also argues that the Ogata application is still abandoned,
notwithstanding the granting of Ogata's petition to revive.
Manzo bottoms his argument on the fact that Ogata did not submit
with the petition to revive "responsive pleading or [required]
fees ***" (Paper No. 40, page 2).
Ogata timely filed OGATA OPPOSITION TO MANZO RESPONSE TO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Paper No. 42). Ogata notes that Manzo did
not file a preliminary motion for judgment (37 CFR § 1.633(a))
based on alleged abandonment. Hence, Ogata reasons that Manzo
did not properly raise the "abandonment" issue and that the board
should not consider that issue. Alternatively, and on the
merits, Ogata points out that no amendment was needed with the
petition to revive inasmuch as the Primary Examiner had entered
an Examiner's Amendment. Following entry of the Examiner's
Amendment, there were no longer any unresolved rejections and/or
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007