Interference No. 102,755
38 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984) (unexplained inactivity for one and
one-half months defeats claim of diligence); Moller v.
Harding, 214 USPQ 724, 729 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1982) (unexplained
inactivity for one and one-half months defeats claim of
diligence); Morway v. Bondi, 203 F.2d 742, 749, 97 USPQ 318,
323 (CCPA 1953) (party not diligent where, following June 7
activity, which was just prior to opponent's June 14 entry
into the field, party did not perform other acts until August
1); Ireland v. Smith, 97 F.2d 95, 99-100, 37 USPQ 807, 811
(CCPA 1938) (held not diligent for failing to account for
period of three and one-half weeks). Consequently, it is not
necessary to consider whether Nedelk was diligent during the
remainder of the critical period, i.e., from July 1988 up to
Nedelk's February 21, 1989, filing date.
C. Nedelk's belated on-sale and XB-70 motions
As already noted, the APJ dismissed Nedelk's on-sale
and XB-70 motions for failing to show good cause under
§ 1.645(b) for the belatedness. 18
A preliminary motion is belated in the sense of § 1.645(b)18
if it is filed after the close of the preliminary motion period.
General Instrument Corp. v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc., 995 F.2d 209,
213, 27 USPQ2d 1145, 1147-48 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
- 28 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007