Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
belated opposition (Paper No. 35).
According to Hoshino, it was an assertion in Tanaka’s
opposition to Hoshino’s motion to redefine the count, which
provided an excuse for Hoshino to file a belated opposition to
Tanaka’s motion for benefit. Hoshino argues that in Tanaka’s
opposition to Hoshino’s motion to redefine the count, it was
stated that one with ordinary skill would find it "inherent"
in the count that the conversion coefficient would be
corrected by utilizing both the magnitude and the sign of the
defocus. Thus, according to Hoshino, if the count were to be
regarded as requiring that the conversion coefficient be
corrected by using both the magnitude and sign of the defocus
amount, then Tanaka would not be entitled to benefit of the
Japanese applications.
Like the APJ, we have difficulty comprehending the logic
of Hoshino’s position. At best, if the APJ in fact ruled,
contrary to Hoshino’s view, that the count required the
correction of the
conversion coefficient be based on both the magnitude and sign
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007