Preserving Objections to In Personam Jurisdiction - Ohio's Persistent Shibboleth

The scenario is commonplace: Plaintiff causes summons to be served on the defendant. The defendant believes the summons is fatally defective, or the service is faulty, or that, for some reason or another, the court in which the action is brought cannot lawfully obtain jurisdiction over his person. Accordingly, he files a motion to quash and set aside the summons, or a motion to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction. As so frequently happens, the court does not quite see the wisdom of defendant's position, and overrules the motion.

Usually, the court's journal entry will note that the defendant's "objections and exceptions" to it's order "are noted and saved". Must the defendant now reserve his objection to in personam jurisdiction in all subsequent motions and pleadings filed in the action?