Interference No. 103,036
requests, the various oppositions, replies thereto and comments27
to various oppositions and replies, filed by the parties. In
addition, the APJ opened preliminary statements and ordered their
service. At the same time, the APJ placed the junior parties
Tucholski and Cataldi et al. under an order pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.640(d)(3) to show cause why judgment should not be entered28
against them in view of the fact that the dates alleged in their
preliminary statements did not overcome the filing date of the
senior party Burroughs et al.
The junior parties Tucholski and Cataldi et al. filed
responses to the show cause order. The purpose of this final
In an order, dated December 12, 1994 (Paper No. 77), the APJ27
in charge of the interference at that time authorized the parties to
file comments in support of or in opposition to a motion directed at
another party.
This section reads, in part, as follows:28
§ 1.640 Motions, hearings and decision, redeclaration of
interference, order to show cause.
* * * * *
(d) An administrative patent judge may issue an order to
show cause why judgment should not be entered against a party when:
* * * * *
(3) The party is a junior party whose preliminary
statement fails to overcome the effective filing date of another
party.
-4-
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007