Interference No. 102,755
interference were mailed on December 6, 1993, only seven and
one-half months before Nedelk's belated motion was filed.
Otherwise, Nedelk contends, the first paragraph is completely
immaterial to the Notice. We do not agree. It is clear that
the first paragraph describes the facts in the particular
interference which led to publication of the Notice. The
second paragraph, on the other hand, gives the procedure to be
followed whenever relevant prior art that can be the subject
of a § 1.633(a) motion is discovered after the close of the
preliminary motion period.
Nedelk next argues that neither the Notice nor42
Maier imposes a duty on Nedelk to promptly investigate
DeVlieg's XB-70 allegations. As to the Notice, Nedelk argues
that "[a]ll that is required by this notice is that the moving
party file its motions promptly after the evidence becomes
available" (NMB 20). This argument ignores the reference in
the first paragraph of the Notice to "prior art reference . .
. which the party could not previously have located," which
clearly implies such a duty. Nedelk next argues that Maier is
inapposite because it concerned prior art that could have been
located prior to the close of the preliminary motion period,
NMB 20.42
- 45 -
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007