Interference No. 102,755
affidavit by Ms. Utstein. Nedelk filed a supplemental
affidavit by Weber and an affidavit by Rodney Skoglund. After
determining that the new affidavits also were in direct
conflict and seeing no reason to give greater weight to
Nedelk's affidavits than to Stimson's, the APJ held that
Nedelk had failed to prove the existence of an agreement and
dismissed the § 1.633(a) motion for lack of good cause for the
last seven months of delay. Regarding the alleged agreement,52
the APJ further noted that it was
not necessary to decide whether the parties
should be allowed to make such an agreement
without the approval of the administrative
patent judge, where, as here, the evidence
to be relied on in the belated motion
(i.e., the Wells affidavit and exhibits)
was known to all of the parties. This
question was not addressed by and of the
parties. [Id. at 3.]
Nedelk filed a request for reconsideration of the dismissal53
of the § 1.633(a) motion, which request was denied by the APJ
in a paper mailed November 14, 1996. 54
Stimson has moved under § 1.656(h) to suppress the55
Wells affidavit (NE 1070-81) and exhibits thereto (NE 1082-
Paper No. 62, at 2.52
Paper No. 65.53
Paper No. 68.54
Paper No. 88.55
- 54 -
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007