Interference No. 103,169
7
did not include either a motion which shows good cause why the paper was not timely
8
filed or a certificate of conferral. Chenevey et al. countered that the motion failed to
comply with the rules and was untimely, having been filed nine months after the close of the
Chenevey et al. testimony period on December 10, 1993.
The first and second belated motions are dismissed since the motions fail to
comply with the rules, 37 C.F.R. § §1.635, 1.645(b) and 1.637(b).
ITEMS G and H
In response to the Chenevey et al. argument that the Baars et al. motions (ITEMS E
and F) were untimely and failed to comply with the rules, Baars et al. filed a third and fourth
belated motion for judgment (ITEMS G and H) entitled ?Motions for Judgment under 37
C.F.R. § §1.635 and 1.655(c)... .” These motions supplement the original motions in that
they each contain reasons to excuse the belatedness, a certificate of conferral, and a
request that the motions be entertained to prevent manifest injustice [in 1995, the rule was
amended to refer to ?the interest of justice” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.655(c)].
7 37 C.F.R. § 1.645(b) states in part: ?A]ny paper belatedly filed will not be
considered except upon motion (§1.635) which shows good cause why the paper was not
timely filed” (1995).
837 C.F.R. § 1.637(b) states in part “... a motion under § 1.635 shall contain a
certificate by the moving party stating that the moving party has conferred with all
opponents in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the
motion.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007