Interference No. 103,036
requests, the various oppositions, replies thereto and comments50
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 to show cause why
judgment should not be entered 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
hearing is to determine whether the junior parties Tucholski51
and Cataldi et al. have shown sufficient cause to avoid the entry
of judgment against them. In the concurrent decisions
accompanying this order, we have held that the junior parties
Tucholski and Cataldi et al. did not show sufficient cause to
avoid the entry of judgment against them and accordingly issued
judgment against those parties.
ISSUES
In an order, dated December 12, 1994 (Paper No. 77), the APJ50
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 decision addresses the issues raised by the party Wang51
et al.; the accompanying final decisions address the issues raised by
the parties Tucholski and Cataldi et al.
-4-
Page: Previous 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007