Interference No. 101,981
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). This motion is deemed untimely
because the motion was filed after the reply brief was filed and
nearly 10 months after the close of the period for cross-
examining Batlogg’s witnesses. We can find no good reason why
this was not filed earlier. Since Batlogg has not had the
opportunity to fully respond to the issue, we do not treat the
merits of Qadri’s motion (QM4) under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and
1.633(a) (paper no. 241). The motion to consider the belated
motion is denied and the motion for judgment is dismissed.
As a result of our decision of Qadri’s §635 motion,
Batlogg’s motion (BaM3) under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and 1.656(h) to
suppress evidence by Qadri for improperly raising the issue of
sufficiency of Batlogg’s application under the best mode
provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (paper no. 223(2)) is rendered moot.
We find that, under 35 USC 112, Qadri and Beyers have not
sustained their burden to establish Batlogg’s claim 16 is
unpatentable.
Whether Beyers’ Application Complies With 35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of our finding that Batlogg can support their date
of constructive reduction to practice, Beyers cannot demonstrate
66
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007