Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
opportunity to oppose Tanaka’s previously filed and unopposed
motion for benefit.
We wholly agree with the following assessment of the APJ:
Such interpretation [that the conversion coefficient
be corrected by using both the magnitude and sign of
the defocus amount] which no one admits or agrees
to, can be no basis for Hoshino et al. to justify a
belated opposition to Tanaka’s motion for benefit.
Because Hoshino’s belated opposition to Tanaka’s motion
(T1) for benefit is not excused, we do not consider Hoshino’s
arguments why Tanaka should not be accorded the benefit of
Japanese application 60-219521. It suffices to say only that
the
APJ considered the substance of Tanaka’s motion for benefit
and deemed the arguments of Tanaka to be persuasive. We have
no occasion to review Tanaka’s motion (T1) for benefit
de novo. Accordingly, Tanaka is entitled to benefit of
Japanese application 61-058453 and 60-219521's respective
filing dates of March 17, 1986 and October 2, 1985.
Hoshino’s motion H2 to add proposed
new counts 2, 3, and 4 and to designate
various claims as corresponding or
not corresponding to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007