Interference No. 103,675
Bouchard et al.'s arguments to be unpersuasive.
Bouchard et al.'s first stated reason ignores the record in
this proceeding. In her subsequent decision rendered on July 11, 2000,
the APJ specifically revisited her earlier decision but in light of
Bouchard et al.'s reply to Chen et al.'s opposition. The record is
also clear that the APJ denied Bouchard et al.'s motion. See page 11
of Paper Number 284.
Bouchard et al.'s second reason why the APJ's decision
denying their motion should be overturned also ignores the record in
this proceeding. In her decision deferring the Chen et al. motions for
benefit until final hearing, the APJ afforded both parties the
opportunity to take testimony on the issue of whether examples 3, 5
and 6 of Chen et al.'s earlier filed applications for which they
sought benefit "produce compounds within the count." In Paper Number
54, the APJ set a testimony period for the parties to present their
respective cases for priority and to take testimony on the specific
issue deferred by the APJ to final hearing in her decision on motions.
The testimony period set by the APJ was to close on March 27, 1997,
and was extended to close on April 8, 1997, by the APJ in her order of
October 1, 1996 (Paper Number 63).
All the evidence which Bouchard et al. seek to have admitted
in the record was evidence obtained after the close of the testimony
48
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007