Interference 103,482
No. 79) was timely filed because (1) the APJ presented a new
interpretation of the claim language in his decision on
Dolle’s motion, (2) Dolle’s motion generated “the
impossibility of homo-polymerizing ethylene to provide
isotactic or syndiotactic polymer structures”, and
(3) the APJ newly decided that Dolle’s claims are not directed
to compounds, catalysts, and processes for homopolymerizing
ethylene to provide isotactic or syndiotactic polymer
structures (Paper No. 82, pp. 2-3, bridging para.).
LL. November 12, 1998 -- The APJ entered Decision On
Ewen Motion Under Motion Under 37 CFR § 1.635 For Entry Of
Paper Returned Under 37 CFR § 1.618(a) Or, Alternatively,
Request
For Reconsideration Of Decision Returning Paper Under 37 CFR
§ 1.618(a)(Paper 82)(Paper No. 83). The APJ dismissed the
motion as improper under 37 CFR § 1.635, considered the motion
as a request for reconsideration, and denied the request
(Paper No. 82, p. 2, second and third para.). First, the APJ
found that Ewen had ample opportunity to present evidence
regarding the correct interpretation of the phrase “sequence
length” in Dolle’s claims (Paper No. 82, pp. 2-4). Second,
the APJ stated (Paper No. 82, p. 4, final para.):
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007