Interference No. 103,036
sufficient excuse for failing to file the motion. Certainly, if
the party Tucholski believed that additional evidence in the form
of testimony was required to support its motion, the party could
have availed itself of the provisions of § 1.639(c) to (g) and
described the nature of any proposed testimony. If the party
Tucholski needed evidence which is in possession of an opponent,
the party Tucholski could have explained the evidence sought,
what it will show, and why it is needed. However, the party
Tucholski did not avail itself of these provisions.
The party Tucholski's reliance on Perkins v. Kwon, 886
F.2d 325, 328, 12 USPQ2d 1308, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1989) is
misplaced. In Perkins, 886 F.2d at 328, 12 USPQ2d at 1311, the
Court agreed with the Board "that issues of patentability and
priority that have been fully developed before the Board should
be resolved by the Board." In this case, the issue of
patentability has not been fully developed, much less properly
raised by the party Tucholski. Thus, we are under no obligation
to determine the issue.
-69-
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007