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.
Issues
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;
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007