In Bouzida’s preliminary statement, Bouzida stated that
Bouzida “does not intend to present evidence to prove a prior
conception of an actual reduction to practice of the subject
matter of Count 1, and intends to reply (sic) solely on the
priority of the filing date of their French priority application,
French Patent Application No. 96.15584, filed on December 18,
1996.” (Paper 29 at 1). Beamer unopposed preliminary motion 2,
attacking the benefit granted Bouzida to its French priority
application No. 96.15584, filed on December 18, 1996 was granted.
An order to show cause was filed requesting Bouzida to show cause
why the interference should continue, since Bouzida does not
allege an earlier date of invention relative to Beamer (Paper
53).
On October 15, 2001, Bouzida filed a paper entitled
“BOUZIDA’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE”
(Paper 55). On October 15, 2001 Bouzida also filed a paper
entitled “BOUZIDA’S MOTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.640(e)(3)
and 1.635" (Paper 56).
In response to the order to show cause, Bouzida does not
demonstrate that it can prove a date prior to Beamer. Instead,
Bouzida’s response to the order to show cause is essentially a
request for reconsideration of the denial of Bouzida preliminary
motion 1. Bouzida’s motion under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.640(e)(3) and
1.635 is a request for a testimony period to introduce evidence
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007