Interference No. 102,668
motion begins with the filing of the motion, not its denial.
See Hanagan v. Kimura, 16 USPQ 1791, 1794 (Comm'r Pats. &
Trademarks 1990) ("It is not appropriate to file a motion, see
if the motion will be granted, and then ask for testimony if
the motion is denied."). The duty to promptly obtain and file
relevant evidence also exists with respect to belatedly filed
motions, I.,e., motions filed after the close of the
preliminary motion period. See Interference Practice: Matters
Relating to Belated Preliminary Motions, 1144 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 8 (Nov. 3, 1992) (where evidence that provides a basis
for a § 1.633(a) motion does not come to light until after the
end of the preliminary motion period, the board will not
consider the matter unless the party, promptly after the
evidence becomes available,
files a belated § 1.633(a) motion accompanied by a § 1.635
motion showing good or sufficient cause for the belatedness).
For the foregoing reasons, the twenty-two month hiatus in
McMahon's efforts to obtain Lindberg's affidavit cannot be
excused on the ground that the initial motion, based only on
the first Jones affidavit, was granted by the APJ. Nor can
this period of inactivity be excused on the ground that
- 38 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007