A decision on preliminary motions was rendered October
20, 1999. (Paper 43). The decision included an order to show
cause why judgment should not be entered against party
Okajima . (Paper 43 at 21). In response to the order to show1
cause, Okajima stated that it would accept judgment against it
on the issue of priority. (Paper 45). However, Okajima made
a request for final hearing to review the administrative
patent judge’s decision denying Okajima’s preliminary motion 2
for judgment against Bourdeau’s claims 13-24 and 26-28 in view
of various prior art. (Paper 45).
Party Bourdeau filed a request for final hearing to
review the administrative patent judge’s decision (1) granting
Okajima’s preliminary motion 1 to designate Bourdeau’s claims
13-24 and 26 as corresponding to the count; and (2) denying
Bourdeau’s preliminary motion 2 to designate Okajima’s claims
18-20 as corresponding to the count. (Paper 44).
In its principal brief, Bourdeau states that it no
longer seeks review of the granting of Okajima’s preliminary
motion 1. (Paper 49 at 1). In addition to its principal
1Bourdeau’s unopposed preliminary motion for benefit of
its French application 95.08587, filed July 11, 1995 was
granted. (Paper 43 at 15). In its preliminary statement,
Okajima indicates that it shall rely on its filing date of
June 18, 1996.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007