Interference 104,133
Before PATE, HANLON and ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ELLIS, Administrative Patent jqýge.
BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2003, an Order to Show Cause (Paper Nos. 73 and 75) was
entered against junior party Natsuka for failure to overcome the senior party's priority
date. 37 CF.R. § 1.640(d)(1). I
In response, Natsuka submitted a request for final hearing (Paper No. 78).
37 C.F.R. § 1.640(e)(1)(i).
On April 28, 2003, an ORDER setting times for testimony was issued by the APJ,
which included two (2) alternative time schedules setting forth the dates on which the
parties briefs for the aforementioned final hearing would be due. Paper No.113, pp, 4
and 5. Given the facts of this case, the parties pursued the second of the two briefing
schedules. The second briefing schedule states that junior party Natsuka's brief is due
on September 15, 2003.
At 12:15 p.m., on Friday, September 12, 2003, counsel for both parties called
APJ Ellis requesting a conference call and an extension of time for their respective
briefs.
The APJ was unavailable for a conference call, but the parties were informed by
the paralegal Ms. Esther Dove that no extension of time would be granted. The parties
were further informed that if they still desired a conference call, the APJ would be
available at 2:00 p.m. that same afternoon.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007