Interference No. 102,668
public policy against knowingly issuing invalid patents" (Br.
at 42).
McMahon further contends that "[i]f Cavanagh does not have all
of the evidence considered in the McMahon et al. Record
considered in determining the patentability of its pending
application claims, it can cause a violation of its duty of
disclosure in connection with its pending patent application"
(id.).
These arguments are unconvincing for a number of reasons. The
first reason is that they overlook McMahon's duty to timely
file the evidence, discussed infra, which is a condition for
having the evidence considered during an interference. The
second reason, which Cavanagh raised in his motion to
suppress, is McMahon's failure to file a § 1.635 motion
requesting permission to rely on the new affidavits by Jones,
Chapman, and Ellis in support of his initial § 1.633(a) motion
or his belated § 1.633(a) motion, as required by the APJ in
paper No. 85 (at 9). The fact that McMahon additionally
relies on these affidavits as evidence of priority does not
- 40 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007