Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
(Unopposed)
In addition to the foregoing motions, the APJ’s decision
also ruled that party Hoshino’s preliminary statement was not
in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.622(b) and thus party Hoshino is
deemed as not having filed a preliminary statement. On that
ground, the APJ included an order for party Hoshino to show
cause why judgment should not be issued against the junior
party, for not having filed a preliminary statement.
Hoshino seeks (Paper No. 77) review of:
1. The denial-in-part of Hoshino’s motions H1 and H2. 3
2. The denial of Hoshino’s motion H5.
3. The granting of Tanaka's motions T1, T2, and T5. 4
3The APJ added Hoshino's reissue application but ruled
that all claims correspond to count 1, not proposed new count
2, 3, or 4. The APJ added claims 40-53 to Tanaka's
application but held that they correspond to count 1, not
proposed new counts 2, 3 and 4.
4The APJ designated Tanaka's amended claims 34-38 as
(continued...)
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007