Interference No. 103,036
course of conduct in the interference for any situation not
specifically covered by this subpart (37 CFR § 1.601 et seq.) in
order to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of the interference. The rules, 37 CFR § 1.601 et seq., are not
designed for a multi-party interference. The bifurcation of this
proceeding into two phases, the first final hearing to hear
questions of patentability and the second final hearing to hear
questions of priority of invention, will secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of this interference. Contrary to
the arguments of the party Tucholski, the APJ did not abuse his
discretion by setting separate final hearings. See the footnote
in the Commissioner's Notice of December 8, 1986, 1074 Off.
Gaz. 4, which reads as follows:
It should be recognized that the decision of the
Board following the final hearing may not terminate
the interference. For example, if the order to show
cause resulted from an Examiner-in-Chief's [APJ's]
grant of a motion for judgment, and the Board after
final hearing reversed the Examiner-in-Chief's
[APJ's] decision, the case might then proceed to the
taking of priority testimony. The Board's decision
would however be final with regard to the basis of
the motion for judgment.
-65-
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007