Interference No. 102,755
(2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law, (3) rests on
clearly erroneous fact findings, or (4) involves a record that
contains no evidence which provides rational support for the
decision. Abrutyn v. Giovanniello, 15 F.3d 1048, 1050-51,
29 USPQ2d 1615, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also 1995 Final
Rule Notice, 60 Fed. Reg. at 14514-15; 1173 Off. Gaz. Pat. &
Trademark Office at 58.
2. Background facts leading up to the
filing of the two belated motions
On August 31, 1992, the last day for filing
preliminary motions in the '756 interference, DeVlieg
(Boeing), who was involved in only that interference, filed a
§ 1.633(a) motion for judgment against all of the parties'21
involved claims on the ground that "the concept of applying
only a portion of the brakes on an aircraft when the speed of
the aircraft is below a predetermined threshold speed was
invented and reduced to practice in connection with the XB-70
program" (Motion at 2). The motion was accompanied by an
affidavit by DeVlieg stating that on July 20, 1992, he and22
Ms. Harasek, counsel of record in the involved DeVlieg
Paper No. 19 in the '756 interference file.21
In paper No. 62 of the '755 interference file, at 6 n.6,22
the APJ indicated that the motion was incorrect to state (at 2)
that it is accompanied by an affidavit by Ms. Harasek.
- 30 -
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007