Interference 103,482
of Dr. William J. Gauthier which accompanied the request, as
unauthorized papers under 37 CFR § 1.618(a). The APJ found
that Ewen’s request for reconsideration was based, in
substantial part, on the newly submitted declaration of Dr.
Gauthier (Paper No. 80, pp. 1-2, bridging para., last
sentence). Because 37 CFR § 1.639(a) provides that “proof of
any material fact alleged in a motion . . . must be filed and
served with the motion” and 37 CFR § 1.640(c) provides that
the “request for reconsideration shall specify with
particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended
or overlooked in rendering the decision”, the APJ returned
Ewen’s new evidence and the request for reconsideration based
thereon as untimely and inappropriate. The APJ stated that he
could not have misapprehended or otherwise overlooked evidence
which is presented for the first time with a request for
reconsideration of a decision on motion (Paper No. 80, p. 2,
final para.).
KK. October 27, 1998 -- Ewen filed Ewen Motion Under 37
CFR § 1.635 For Entry Of Paper Returned Under 37 CFR §
1.618(a) Or, Alternatively, Request For Reconsideration Of
Decision Returning Paper Under 37 CFR § 1.618(a)(Paper No.
82). Ewen argued that his Request for Reconsideration (Paper
36
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007