SAWADA et al. V. JIN et al. - Page 9

                 Interference No. 103,141                                                                                                               

                 brief.  The senior party has opposed  the motion.  The           6                                                                     
                 portions sought to be suppressed, viz., page 9, line 23                                                                                
                 through page 10, line 1, and page 10, line 6 (beginning                                                                                
                 “Specifically”) through page 11,   line 9, deal with a                                                                                 
                 declaration filed by senior party Jin in support of a senior                                                                           
                 party motion in response to Sawada’s                                                                                                   
                 Opposition No. 6.  Sawada argues that the declaration has not                                                                          
                 been entered into evidence for this final hearing pursuant to                                                                          
                 37 CFR  1.671(a).                                                                                                                     
                                   According to the junior party’s brief, after APJ                                                                     
                 Ronald H. Smith’s second motion decision  on May 8, 1995, the           7                                                              
                 parties agreed in a telephone conference with Judge Smith on                                                                           
                 June 8, 1995 that the parties would forego a testimony period                                                                          
                 and move directly to file briefs for final hearing.  Absence                                                                           
                 of a testimony period is not normative interference procedure,                                                                         
                 however.  Accordingly, when the undersigned panel took up the                                                                          
                 case for decision, the panel sua sponte moved all materials                                                                            

                          6Paper No. 119, filed August 21, 1995.  Note, these                                                                           
                 papers are out of order in the interference file.  Junior                                                                              
                 party Sawada’s reply to the senior party’s opposition bears                                                                            
                 Paper No. 120 and was filed on September 5, 1995.                                                                                      
                          7Paper No. 114.                                                                                                               

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007