Interference No. 103,379 Decision on Reconsideration the evidence on which Seifert intends to rely to demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 251 was due with the opposition to Dance's 37 CFR § 1.633(a) motion. See Irikura v. Petersen, 18 USPQ2d 1362, 1368 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) ("A good faith effort must be made to submit evidence to support a preliminary motion or opposition when the evidence is available. Orikasa v. Oonishi, [10 USPQ2d 1996, 2000 n.12 (Comm'r Pats. & Trademarks 1989)].") Further- more, in Paper No. 54 (at 12) the Administrative Patent Judge advised the5 parties that any new evidence submitted in connection with previously filed motions "may be submitted with respect to such motions only upon a showing (§ 1.635) that the evidence was unavailable when the corresponding motion, opposition or reply was filed. Such a motion must be filed at least 10 days prior to the end of that party's relevant testimony period." As no Bookstein declaration was filed by the end of Seifert's testimony period (with or without an accompanying § 1.635 motion), Dance's motion to strike was due with his opening "ADDITION OF SEIFERT CLAIM 1; SCHEDULE FOR § 1.640(b)5 STATEMENTS, TESTIMONY, RECORDS AND BRIEFS," mailed November 15, 1996. - 7 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007