Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
original motion. The filing of an opposition does not provide
the movant a back door to submit evidence which should have
been submitted with the original motion. The omission is even
more inexcusable here, where 37 CFR § 1.639(a) and prior
explicit warning from the APJ placed the parties on notice
that evidence needed to support a
motion must be filed with the motion and not with the reply.
As we indicated earlier, the APJ further stated in advance to
the parties that with respect to all preliminary "motions" the
moving party bears the burden of establishing a prima facie
case of entitlement to relief. Also, 37 CFR § 1.638(b) states
that a reply shall be directed only to new points raised in
the opposition.
The Board has a substantial backlog in interference
cases. If a moving party’s original motion papers and
evidence in support of the motion do not demonstrate a prima
facie basis for relief, regardless of any opposition to the
motion, as we have
determined here, the motion should be denied and the movant
- 41 -
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007