Interference No. 105,174 Paper 86
Henkel v. P&G Page 15
E. Conclusion
Since P&G has failed to meet its initial burden of proof rebutting the presumption
that an interference-in-fact exists, we do not reach “HENKEL CORPORATION’S
PAPER IN SUPPORT OF INTERFERENCE-IN-FACT” (Paper 82) or “HENKEL
OPPOSITION 7" (Paper 85).
In view of the Decision (Paper 73), “HENKEL CORPORATION’S SUBMISSION
OF EXHIBITS 2027 and 2028" (Paper 76), the “ORDER - MISCELLANEOUS” entering
the amendments to Henkel applications ‘434 and ‘578 (Exs 2027 and 2028) (Paper 77)
and the foregoing DECISION, this interference is being concurrently redeclared.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007