MANZO et al. V. OGATA et al. - Page 3




                    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