Interference No. 102,755
Kojima, 206 USPQ 958, 959 (Comm'r Pats. & Trademarks 1978)
(using request for reconsideration to present reasons not
included in the original motion as filed "constitutes
unjustifiable piecemeal prosecution of the interference[,]
which is contrary both to the public interest and orderly
procedure. See Pritchard v. Loughlin, 360 F.2d 250, 149 USPQ
676 [sic, 361 F.2d 483, 487, 149 USPQ 841, 844] (CCPA
1966).").
The second problem with the argument is that it is
incorrect on the merits. Belatedness of a party's motion is
not excusable on the ground that the party was waiting for a
decision on a similar motion by another party. See Jackson v.
Cuntz, 1905 Comm'r Dec. 92, 92, 115 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark
Office 510 (Comm'r Pats. 1905):
It is said in the affidavit in support
of the [Jackson's] motion [to dissolve]
that a motion for dissolution was brought
by one Brown, who was a party to the
proceedings, and such motion was not
decided until December 30, 1904. This
seems to be regarded by Jackson as an
excuse for not taking steps to make his own
motion before December 30; but it is well
settled that it constitutes no valid
excuse. (Perrussel v. Wichman, C.D., 1902,
228; 99 O.G., 2970). The pendency of
Brown's motion constituted no obstacle to
the filing of Jackson's motion, but, on the
contrary, it would seem that both might
have been filed and considered with
advantage at the same time. To delay one
- 49 -
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007