end effector for holding a surgical instrument. Accordingly, our
decision did not raise a new issue. Green had the opportunity to
respond when opposing Wang's preliminary motion. We simply
resolved the issue raised in Wang's motion while giving full
consideration to the points made and evidence submitted by both
parties.
We note, that Green has already filed a responsive
preliminary motion 4 in which Green proposed to change the term
"end effector" for holding a surgical instrument to an "outer
operating end" for holding a surgical instrument. That
preliminary motion was denied (Paper 76 at 20).
Having considered Green's arguments in its request for
reconsideration, we conclude that Green has failed to demonstrate
that we misapprehended or overlooked any fact or argument first
presented prior to the filing of the request for reconsideration.
The decision on preliminary motions (Paper 76) has been
reconsidered to the extent necessary to provide the discussion
here. No change in the decision will be made. Green's request
for reconsideration is denied.
.Since Green lacks.standing to continue in this interference
(Paper 76 at 21-28), judgment is entered against Green.
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that Green's request for reconsideration is denied.
- 12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007