Interference No. 104,761 Paper108
Univ. of New Mexico v. Fordham Univ. Page 9
unpatentability for products and methods of making such products). Fordham's request
for reconsideration does not point to any overlooked motivation, so while the decision
has been reconsidered, relief from the decision is DENIED.
UNM's opposition
(15] The Board did not consider UNM's opposition (Paper 104) to Fordham's request in
reaching its decision to deny Fordharn relief.
[16] Fordharn had asked that the opposition be struck (Paper 105).
As discussed in Paper 105, an opposition to a request for reconsideration is not
automatic under 37 C.F.R. § 1.640. That paper indicated that the opposition would be
struck' if it proved unnecessary. Consequently, UNM's opposition shall be STRUCK
from the record.
JUDGMENT
Neither party has requested a final hearing (Paper 105). Consequently, this
interference is ripe for final judgment. The addition of UNM 141 claims 1-18
(Paper 106) does not change this conclusion since the count to which they correspond
has not changed and thus the priority case available to UNM to defend these claims
has not changed.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Fordham's miscellaneous motion 4 and UNM's opposition,
UNM's and Fordham's requests for reconsideration of the decision on motions, and
6 Paper 105 actually says "returned", but returning a paper makes little sense in an interference with
electronic filing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007