AUSNIT V. INAGAKI - Page 4




          Interference No. 103,640                                                    



          claims of Inagaki were unpatentable to Inagaki under 35 U.S.C.              
           103.  The APJ considered and denied all other motions by either           
          party.  Additionally, the APJ placed Inagaki under an order to              
          show cause.  The motion decision and show cause order were mailed           
          March 26, 1999.  In response to the show cause order, Inagaki               
          requested this final hearing.  In response to Inagaki’s hearing             
          request, the APJ gave the parties a testimony time period for               
          introduction of declaration evidence relied upon during the                 
          motion phase of the interference as well as for cross-examination           
          of the declarants.  The APJ’s testimony letter also set a                   
          schedule for filing the record and the briefs.                              
                              Evidence at Final Hearing                               
                    As noted in the background section above, the APJ set a           
          testimony period for the parties to make of record declarations             
          filed in support of preliminary motions and for cross-examination           
          of the witnesses making the declarations.  However, we note in              
          the record the presence of new declarations and cross-examination           
          pertinent thereto, added by the senior party during the testimony           
          period.  Indeed, during oral argument the senior party repeatedly           
          referred to the new evidence adduced during the testimony period.           
                    Any new evidence adduced by the parties after the close           
          of the preliminary motions period (excepting cross-examination of           
          declarations filed during the motions period) will not be con-              

                                          4                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007