Interference No. 103,169
Baars et al. request that the Board entertain the merits of motions G and H under
the interest of justice provision of 37 C.F.R. § 1.655(c) if the motion to excuse is denied.
37 C.F.R. § 1.655(c) states that ?the Board may exercise its discretion to consider an
issue even though it would not otherwise be entitled to consideration... .”
In this instance, we decline to exercise our discretion. The discretionary action of
the Board is used for the most extraordinary of circumstances, Kwon v. Perkins, 6
USPQ2d 1747, 1756 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988) aff’d, Perkins v. Kwon, 886 F.2d 325,
328, 12 USPQ2d 1308, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It is not an avenue of relief for a party’s
failure to know interference procedure or law.
Baars et al. motion to suppress
ITEM I
In their motion, Baars et al. ask that Chenevey et al. Exhibits 5-13, 15, 16,
18-20, 23, 24-28, 30(a), 31-33, and 37-42 and the related testimony corresponding
to the exhibits be suppressed.
At the hearing, Baars et al. renewed the motion to suppress Exhibits
18-20, 26-28, 30a, 31-33, 37-42. Accordingly, the motion to suppress with respect to
Exhibits 5-13, 15, 16, 23, 24-25 is dismissed as moot. In addition, the motion to suppress
Exhibits 15, 16 and 24 is dismissed because Chenevey et al. did not rely upon these
exhibits in their brief.
At the hearing, the Board requested that Baars et al. submit a paper setting forth
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007