Interference No. 104,241
consider the supplemental evidence proffered by them because
"the Judge may now require more evidence," (page 12 of Paper
Number 3) it was the law, not the APJ, which required more
evidence than provided by Jeon et al. with their original
showing. Jeon et al. were presumed to know the legal
requirements for establishing an actual reduction to practice
when their original showing was made. To the extent that Jeon
et al.'s argument is in reality an argument that they were
unaware of the legal requirements for proving an actual
reduction to practice, the commentary to the new rules and the
cases interpreting the new rules make it clear ignorance of
the substantive requirements of the law does constitute "good
cause" under the rule.
Although we have held that Jeon et al. have failed to
establish "good cause" for now presenting their supplemental
evidence and, therefore, we need not consider their evidence
on the merits, in an abundance of caution and for the
completeness of the record we make the following observations.
In the first instance, all the supplemental evidence is
proffered by Yoon T. Jeon, one of the named inventors in Jeon
et al.'s involved application and, accordingly, requires
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007