Interference No. 102,668
In connection with this final hearing, both parties
filed records and briefs addressing priority and the12
foregoing patentability issue. McMahon has moved to strike
parts of Cavanagh's reply brief and Cavanagh has moved to
suppress much of the evidence on which McMahon relies to prove
what was disclosed at the Miami meeting. Appearance at oral
hearing was waived by both parties.13
McMahon's motion to strike parts of Cavanagh's reply brief
This motion seeks to strike a copy of a previously
filed amendment that accompanied Cavanagh's reply brief and a
number of factual allegations in the reply brief. The
amendment in question was initially filed in Cavanagh's
involved application along with a number of § 1.608(b)14
affidavits in order to provoke this interference. Cavanagh
supplied a copy of this amendment with his reply brief in
response to McMahon's argument (Br. at 19) that Cavanagh's
affidavit is incomplete to the extent he claims he "invented
Cavanagh's opening and reply briefs are identified as12
"Open. Br." and "Reply Br."). McMahon's brief is identified as
"Br."
Paper No. 101.13
Application paper No. 6, received September 28, 1990.14
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007