Interference No. 102,755 under the FOIA because the controlling agency no longer exists. The information and documentation that was obtained clearly demonstrates that during flight tests of the XB-70 only a portion of the brakes were used during taxiing (selective inhibiting and enabling of the brakes - - not pressure regulation on the brakes), while all of the brakes were used during normal braking operations. Accordingly, it appears that the broad concept of Count I in this interference was known well prior to August 21, 1987. The APJ considered the motion and DeYoung's affidavit insufficient for failing to prove, or even allege, the dates of the acts alleged therein. The APJ explained that these38 dates are necessary because Nedelk is required to show that he promptly and diligently investigated the XB-70 braking system upon being served with DeVlieg's XB-70 motion in order to preserve the right to file a belated motion alleging unpatentability based on that braking system. As support for such a duty, the APJ cites two authorities, the first being39 Interference Practice: Matters Relating to Belated Preliminary Motions (hereinafter, Notice), 1144 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 8 (Nov. 3, 1992), which reads in pertinent part as follows: In some interference proceedings, evidence which would provide a basis for a Paper No. 68, at 11-12.38 Paper No. 62, at 10.39 - 42 -Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007