SAWADA et al. V. JIN et al. - Page 7

          Interference No. 103,141                                                    

          16, 1999. Accordingly, the review of the APJ’s decision on the              
          preliminary motions has been decided in the following decision              
          without deference to the prior decision by the lone APJ.  It                
          is noted                                                                    
          that both parties have briefed and argued the issue under the               
          abuse of discretion standard, and when the arguments of the                 
          parties are characterized, this opinion will accurately                     
          reflect those arguments as being under the abuse of discretion              
          standard in order to avoid mischaracterization of a party’s                 
          position as briefed.  However, the standard of review                       
          instituted by the interim, and now final, rule has been used                
          by the panel in rendering a decision.                                       
                    The following issues are raised by the junior party               
          in its brief.  The senior party raises no additional issues.                
                    i) The denial of Sawada preliminary motion 1 to add               
          a count (count A) to the interference;                                      
                    ii) The failure of the APJ to accord benefit to                   
          Sawada with respect to Japanese Application No. 62-25224 as to              
          proposed count A;                                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007