Interference No. 102,755 statement. The belated motion includes a section entitled "V. GOOD CAUSE SHOWING FOR BELATED MOTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.635 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §1.655(b) [sic, §1.645(b)]," which gives several reasons for the belatedness. The reason offered to explain the initial part of the delay is that "the pertinent dates of the on-sale bar and other activities that support the bar were not known to Junior Party Nedelk until after the Preliminary Statements were opened and analyzed." (Motion at 6.) The APJ held, and Stimson does not dispute,46 that this constitutes good cause for the delay up to about December 20, 1993, when Nedelk received and opened copies of Stimson's corrected preliminary statement and the accompanying Wells affidavit and exhibits thereto. Nedelk seeks to excuse the last seven months of delay between December 20, 1993, and July 21, 1994, for the following reasons: [B]ecause efforts to resolve this interference without filing additional, substantive motions have been ongoing, and in the interest of economy, the subject Motion was not filed immediately upon discovery of the pertinent dates. Indeed, Junior Party Nedelk has only recently become fully aware of certain facts set forth hereinabove through information obtained during exploration of settlement Paper No. 57, at 3.46 - 51 -Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007