Interference No. 103,586
to practice accompanied by reasonable diligence prior to the entry of Barbacid into the
field?;
4. Brown’s motion for judgment (Brown’s motion 1) filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph that Barbacid claims corresponding to the count are unpatentable for
failure to disclose the best mode; and
5. Barbacid’s motion for judgment (Barbacid’s motion 1) filed pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 135(b)?
6. Brown motion to suppress (Paper No. 109) Opposition (Paper No. 103)
II.
Preliminarily, we note that Barbacid filed a notice pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.640(b)
requesting review of the APJ’s granting Brown et al. motions 5(in-part) and 6. However,
Barbacid do not seek review of these motions in their brief. Matters not raised in the brief
are ordinarily regarded as abandoned. Photis v. Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948 (Bd. Pat.
Int. 1984).
III.
THE PARTIES BRIEFS
It is not the burden of the Board to scour the record, research any legal theory that
comes to mind and serve generally as an advocate for a party. Compare Ernst Haas
Studio Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F3d 110, 112, 49 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (CA 2 1999).
Accordingly, in making our determination as to priority we have reviewed only those
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007