Ex Parte PAGE - Page 17




                       III. DISCUSSION                                                                                                
                       A.      Procedural issues                                                                                      
                       We note that each party argues that the other party, at times, fails to comply with proper                     
               procedure in presenting its arguments in its preliminary motions.  Both parties point to our                           
               decision in LeVeen v. Edwards, 57 USPQ2d 1406 (BPAI (ITS) 2000).                                                       
                       As noted by Glaxo, LeVeen was decided after the initial preliminary motions were filed                         
               in the interference (Paper 154 at 3).  However, to the extent Glaxo is arguing that LeVeen should                      
               not apply in the present interference, we note that the decision in LeVeen did not present any                         
               new procedural requirements for interferences.  For example, LeVeen discussed requirements                             
               found in the Notice Declaring Interference (Paper 1).                                                                  
                       One portion of LeVeen, set out below, discusses improper incorporation by reference,                           
               57 USPQ at 1412:9                                                                                                      
                               The NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE explicitly precludes incorporation                                   
                       by reference of arguments. There are numerous reasons why an agency, in general or in a                        
                       particular case, may preclude incorporation by reference in papers presented to the                            
                       agency. First, an incorporated argument may be overlooked (Paper 1, page 10 n.7).                              
                       Second, incorporation of arguments is not consistent with efficient decision making                            
                       (Paper 1, page 10 n.7). Essentially, incorporation by reference is an inappropriate                            
                       role-shifting technique which makes it a decision maker's job to (1) scour the record, (2)                     
                       come up with some theory which supports a party's case and (3) articulate a rationale in                       
                       an opinion supporting the rationale without giving an opponent a reasonable chance to                          
                       address the rationale. Third, through incorporation by reference an attorney can avoid                         
                       page limitations applicable to motions (Paper 1, page 27 ¶ 28). Compare DeSilva v.                             
                       DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[a]doption by reference amounts to a                        
                       self-help increase in the length of the * * * brief. * * * [I]ncorporation by reference is a                   


                       9       ¶ 13 of the Notice Declaring Interference states that (Paper 1 at 9):                                  
                               Arguments presented in one paper shall not be incorporated by reference to                             
               another paper.                                                                                                         
                                                                    -17-                                                              





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007