Interference No. 102,668
McMahon did not recognize the need for the affidavit until the
APJ's decision granting the motion was reversed in the June 2,
1994, decision on final hearing. Compare Hahn v. Wong,
892 F.2d 1028, 1035, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(Hahn's counsel's alleged failure to appreciate the need for
corroborating evidence as part of Hahn's § 1.608(b) showing
does not constitute good cause under § 1.617(b) for waiting
until after receiving a § 1.617(a) order to show cause to
submit such evidence). It is well settled that a change of
opinion or purpose on the part of the moving party or his
attorney does not constitute good cause for filing a late
motion. Suh v. Hoefle, 23 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1991) (citing II C. Rivise & A. Caesar, Interference Law
and Practice § 270 (Michie Co. 1947). As a result, the APJ
did not abuse his discretion by denying McMahon's belated
motion on the ground that McMahon failed to show good cause
for the delay in obtaining and filing the Lindberg affidavit.
McMahon also argues that all of the testimony in his
record should be considered because "[t]he Board has a duty to
consider all evidence relevant to the patentability issue of
the Cavanagh application claims before it can satisfy the
- 39 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007