Interference No. 104,241
allege establishes "good cause" why the additional evidence
was not earlier presented with the original submission. For
reasons which follow, we find: (1) Jeon et al. have failed to
establish "good cause" for not earlier presenting the
additional evidence filed in response to the order to show
cause; and, (2) assuming for the sake of argument that "good
cause" had been shown, the evidence neither establishes that a
compound within the count was prepared nor that the compound
prepared was recognized at the time of synthesis to have
practical utility.
Jeon et al. urge that "good cause" exists for their
supplemental submission of evidence because: (1) on this
record they have presented more evidence of utility than the
senior party presented in their application which matured to
their patent involved in this interference and that we should
consider said supplemental evidence because "[e]quity between
the parties mandates such a result." (page 12 of Paper Number
3); (2) after reviewing Jeon et al.'s submission under 37
C.F.R § 1.608(b), the examiner determined that an interference
should be declared; and, (3) Jeon et al. relied on the
examiner's implicit finding of utility and the APJ should have
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007