securing "the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of the interference. 37 CFR § 1.601.
To the extent that cur-rent practice may be interpreted as requiring a final hearing with briefing
for purposes of "finality",' we deem the hearing on preliminary motions (see Paper 60) to be that
"final hearing."
111. Conclusion
In response to the order to show cause, Deen states that judgment should not be entered
against it because the decision was in error and should be reversed. Deen has not shown the
decision to be in error and we do not modify our decision. Accordingly, it is appropriate to enter
final judgment against Deen.
IV. Order
Upon consideration of the record of the interference and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that Deen's request for reconsideration of our decision on preliminary
motions (Paper 65) is GRANTED to the extent that we have considered the arguments raised by
Deen;
FURTHER ORDERED that we do not modify our decision on preliminary
motions (Paper 62);
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as to Count 1, the sole count in the
interference, is awarded against junior party KEITH CHARLES DEEN, MARK R. HURLE,
PETER YOUNG, and KONG B. TAN;
3 See 37 CFR § 1.654.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007