Interference No. 103,675
requirement of law. Rather, such broad references to the record are
considered to be invitations to the Board to search through the
party's evidence and find facts which support a party's position on a
particular issue. The reference at page 35 of Chen et al.'s brief
would have us read each paragraph of the "facts", analyze each
paragraph and then have us make a determination of which alleged fact
supports which specific argument or legal theory. This we will not do
because it is the burden of the proponent of a particular position to
do so.
The utter lack of factual detail alone in the "argument"
section of Chen et al.'s motions brief which would support the
arguments made therein concerning the existence of an alleged
embodiment within any of the three counts in this proceeding mandates
that we deny Chen et al. the relief requested. We reiterate that it is
not adequate to invoke the numbered statements of facts required by
the rule by broad, all encompassing reference thereto. Rather the rule
requires "citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and
parts of the record relied on."
This Chen et al. have failed to do in their motions brief.
Further, the counts in this interference are defined by
various structural formulae which include thereon various substituents
defined variously as R, R1, Ar, R1, R2, R3, R4, G1, R13 or R14.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007