Interference No. 102,755
possibilities. However, it is believed
that Stimson et al. suffers no prejudice by
the filing of the Motion and, in fact, knew
that this Motion was going to be filed if
settlement was not reached prior to the
filing of Junior Party Nedelk's affidavits.
[Motion at 6.]
Nedelk's briefs for final hearing do not pursue the argument
that some relevant facts first came to light during the
exploration of settlement possibilities. Instead, Nedelk47
argues that the last seven months of delay should be excused
on the ground that "Junior Party Nedelk believed it had an
agreement with Senior Party Stimson et al. to attempt to
resolve the interference without filing additional substantive
motions until after the settlement discussions terminated"
(NMB 12). Stimson's opposition, which was filed November 10,48
1994, is accompanied by the affidavit of Deborah Utstein, one
of Nedelk's counsels of record, asserting that Stimson made no
Arguments made in a motion but not in the brief for final47
hearing are regarded as abandoned. Irikura v. Petersen, 18 USPQ2d
1362, 1365 n.6 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990); Chai v. Frame, 10
USPQ2d 1460, 1461 n.1 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989); Photis v.
Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984).
Paper No. 48.48
- 52 -
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007