Interference No. 103,675
on. [Emphasis added.]
Mere presentation of facts, evidence and conclusions without specific
citations to the legal theory on which a party relies and the cases,
statutes or other authorities which support a party's position on an
issue do not aid us in our resolution of the issues.
We have, of course, reviewed the entire record in this
interference, including all of the declaration testimony and exhibits
submitted by the parties. Nonetheless, we shall not relieve the
parties of their burden under the rules and speculate as to what is
the basis for the conclusions of fact and law made by them in their
briefs where no adequate reference to the record or citation of
authority is proffered by them. Neither will we search through the
record to find facts which might support the positions taken by them
in their briefs. Rather, conclusions of fact and law made without
appropriate citation to the record or citation of authority will be
taken as mere attorney argument. Compare Ex parte McCullough, 7 USPQ2d
1889 (BPAI 1988); Ex parte Myer, 6 USPQ2d 1966 (BPAI 1988): In re
Mehta, 347 F.2d 859, 146 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1965).
Broad references such as "(See, Statement of Facts, infra,
¶¶ 21-42)." found at page 35 of Chen et al.'s motions brief lack the
adequate specificity required by the rule to direct us to a particular
fact or set of facts which support a particular argument or satisfy a
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007