Interference No. 104,241
After a thorough review of the entire record before us
and for reasons fully expressed below, we find that the order
to show cause was properly issued by the APJ in the discharge
of his interlocutory duties. We find that Jeon et al. have
failed to establish "good cause" for now presenting the
additional evidence filed by them in support of their showing
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b). We also find that Jeon et al.
have failed to meet their burden of persuasion and have failed
to establish that they are entitled to the relief requested by
them in their motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(g).
THE MOTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(g)
In partial response to the order to show cause, Jeon et
al. filed a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(g), attacking the
benefit accorded Cupps et al. for their earlier filed U.S.
application Serial Number 08/169,868, filed on December 17,
1993. If Jeon et al. meet their burden of persuasion and
establish that Cupps et al. are not entitled to the date for
which they have been accorded benefit then Cupps et al.
effective filing date would become the filing date of their
involved patent, that is, December 8, 1994, and Cupps et al.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007