Interference No. 103,987
enough time to digest and act on the Gentry decision in this
less than six month period. Based on this fact, we hold that
the reasonable amount of time to be excused based on the
novelty of the Gentry opinion is approximately the time
necessary for the district courts to start to use the Gentry
case in decisions or just after the first district court case
appeared relying on the Gentry holding. Therefore, the
maximum amount of time creditable to Lim based on the
perceived change in law is approximately six months. This
amount of time is far short of the time that must be excused
for Lim’s motion under 37 CFR § 1.645 to prevail. Therefore,6
Lim’s miscellaneous motion under 37 CFR § 1.645 for
6 The amount of time excused is so much shorter than
the time it actually took junior party Lim’s counsel to file
the motion, we must, under our precedent, presume the
additional delay was the result of a change in strategy,
opinion, or purpose, which does not constitute good cause for
excusing the belatedness of a motion. See 2 Rivise and
Caesar, Interference Law and Practice, Section 270, The Michie
Co. 1943; Suh v. Hoefle, 23 USPQ2d 1321 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1991).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007