Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
1993).
On the same page of the same attachment, the parties were
also specifically warned that:
The parties are required to present all
available relevant evidence on which they intend to
rely with the motion, opposition or reply unless the
evidence is already part of the interference file or
the file of an involved application or patent
[footnote omitted] or unless they can demonstrate
that a decision on the motion should be deferred
until final hearing [footnote omitted].
Furthermore, evidence submitted in support of a
motion must be filed with the motion, not the reply.
See Irikura v. Peterson, 18 USPQ2d 1362, 1368 (BPAI
1990):
A good faith effort must be made to submit
evidence to support a preliminary motion or
opposition when the evidence is available.
Orikasa v. Oonishi, [10 USPQ2d 1996, 2000
n.12 (Comm’r Pats. 1989)]. Note the
commentary [Final Rule Notice] 49 F.R.
48424, at 48442, . . . 1050 O.G. 393 at
411.
It is evident that the APJ determined that Hoshino’s
Motion H2 failed to make out a prima facie basis for relief.
Because we are of the view that Hoshino’s Motion H2
failed to set forth a prima facie basis for relief, the APJ
did not abuse his discretion in denying Hoshino’s Motion H2 to
add proposed new counts 2, 3, and 4.
Background facts
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007