Interference No. 103,675
251, respectively.
We begin by observing that Bouchard et al.'s motion for
benefit was contingent on the granting of Chen et al.'s deferred
motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(c)(1). Because Chen et al. have chosen
not to pursue their motion which was deferred to final hearing, the
event upon which Bouchard et al.'s motion was contingent has not
occurred. See, also page 1 of Chen et al.'s opposition brief.
Therefore, Bouchard et al.'s motion for benefit is DISMISSED as moot.
Bouchard et al.'s miscellaneous motion seeking to file two
belated motions for judgment and Bouchard et al.'s request that the
APJ exercise her discretion each concerned Bouchard et al.'s motions
for judgment on the grounds of non-enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112
and on the grounds that Chen et al. committed "inequitable conduct"
before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the
prosecution of their involved patent in this interference.
We agree with the APJ's conclusion that Bouchard et al.'s
miscellaneous motion to accept belatedly Bouchard et al.'s motions
under 37 C.F.R. §1.633(a) was properly denied because Bouchard et al.
failed to establish "good cause" under 37 C.F.R. § 1.645(b) for why
the motions were not timely filed. On this record, Bouchard et al.'s
argument about only having discovered the alleged inequitable conduct
after the testimony phase was complete rings hollow. As correctly
41
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007