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.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007