Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
4. The sua sponte holding that Hoshino is deemed as not
having filed a preliminary statement.
Tanaka does not seek review of any decision of the APJ
(Paper No. 80). However, Tanaka submits that if our final
decision causes any of the contingencies encompassed by its
contingent motions T3, T4, T7, T9, and T11 to materialize,
then the Board should consider those motions, now dismissed by
the APJ, on the merits.
Opinion
The following issues will be addressed first, before our
discussion of the main issues in this case, i.e., whether
there should be one count or multiple counts, and which claims
of the parties should correspond to the sole count or each of
the multiple counts:
1. Hoshino’s preliminary statement.
2. Hoshino’s reissue and supplemental reissue
declarations.
Tanaka’s motion (T5) for judgment.
3. Hoshino’s motion (H5) to excuse the delay in opposing
Tanaka’s motion (T1) for benefit of the earlier
filing date of Japanese application 60-219521.
Junior Party Hoshino’s
4(...continued)
corresponding to count 1, not proposed new count 2, 3, or 4.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007