Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
does not get an opportunity to complete a prima facie showing
by reliance on evidence submitted in the name of a "reply."
If such non-reply replies are considered and given weight, it
can give rise to at least a full round of surreply with
additional evi- dence for consideration and possibly even a
further reply to address new issues raised in the surreply. A
breakdown of the orderly procedure to present issues and
evidence for considera- tion occurs, causing confusion and
delay in the interference proceeding.
This is not a matter of not allowing Hoshino to reply to
the opposition of Tanaka. But rather, Hoshino’s motion fails
even without our reliance on Tanaka’s opposition to Hoshino’s
motion.
Consequently, there is no occasion to consider Hoshino’s reply
and evidence submitted therewith.
For the foregoing reason, we sustain the APJ’s denial of
Hoshino’s motion to add proposed new counts 2, 3, and 4, and
also sustain the APJ’s decision to designate all of Hoshino’s
involved claims and Tanaka’s involved claims as corresponding
to count 1, not any one of Hoshino's proposed new counts 2, 3,
and 4. The details of which claims according to Hoshino
- 42 -
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007