Sellstedt v. Ishimaru

BALDWIN, J., joins.

The majority opinion assumes that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. I agree that the board’s award of priority to the senior party and the termination of the interference proceedings was a final decision. Thus, this court has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 141.1

*1331However, the majority opinion further assumes that summary judgment under 37 CFR 1.228 (“Rule 228”) must be granted on the procedural ground that appellant failed to respond to the order to show cause, dated July 25,1975. It says it is “manifest” from the board’s opinion that the board based its decision solely…