Interference No. 102,755
Nedelk would have to delay the filing of
the belated on-sale bar motion, had an
agreement not existed. There is clearly no
reason supported by the evidence other than
reasons of economy and the belief of Junior
Party Nedelk that an agreement existed.
[NMB 26.]
This argument was made for the first time in Nedelk's request
for reconsideration and therefore is not entitled to
consideration as implicit proof of Nedelk's belief in the
existence of the agreement. Nevertheless, we note the
language of the motion as filed leaves open the possibility
that it was Nedelk's intention not to file a belated motion in
the event a settlement agreement was reached. In this regard,
we also note that Nedelk has not explained why he believed the
chances for reaching a settlement would be improved by filing
the on sale motion later rather than sooner.
Another reason Nedelk's "agreement" excuse fails is
that the motion does not describe the details of the agreement
or explain why the parties should be permitted, with or
without the approval of the APJ, to make an agreement
apparently contrary to the above-described Notice, which
requires that belated motions based on newly discovered
evidence be promptly filed after the evidence is discovered.
- 58 -
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007