Interference No. 103,141 However, this does not extend to including two patentably distinct inventions in one interference count. We have reviewed the denial of Sawada’s motion 1 anew, giving no deference to the decision in the APJ’s interlocutory order. We have reached the independent conclusion that the motion was correctly decided. The motion stands properly DENIED. The Failure of the APJ to Accord Benefit to Sawada with Respect to Japanese Application No. 62-25224 as to Proposed Count A As noted above, Sawada Motion 1 to add proposed count A to the interference was properly denied. Consequently, it could not have been improper for the APJ to deny Sawada benefit as to a count never added to the interference. The denial of Sawada Preliminary Motion 15 to Accord Sawada Benefit of Japanese Application No. 62-25224 as to New Count 3; After Judge Smith redeclared the interference adding counts 2 and 3, Sawada filed Motion No. 15 pursuant to 37 CFR 19Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007