Interference No. 103,987
rendered a decision on May 21, 1999 favorable to Lim and
removed the second Lim patent from the interference in favor
of an additional inter- ference where count 2 is the count in
the additional inter- ference. Additionally, the APJ again
placed junior party Lim under an order to show cause under 37
CFR § 1.640(d)(3) but only for the original count 1, now the
sole count in the instant interference. In response to the
order to show cause, Lim filed a belated motion for judgment
under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) that all claims of the Caveney
application are unpatentable to Caveney under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. Lim also filed a motion under 37 CFR §§
1.635 and 1.645 requesting that this belated motion for
judgment be considered. As a showing of good cause, Lim cited
Gentry Gallery v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 48 USPQ2d
1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This decision, dated January 27, 1998,
is argued by Lim as representing a substantive change in the
law that was not recognized as such until well after the end
of the preliminary motion period.
The APJ deferred these two motions, the belated
motion for judgment and the motion for consideration of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007