Interference No. 103,675
period or, based on the dates of the documents sought to be entered,
was evidence which was available to Bouchard et al. before the
testimony period closed. Moreover, all the evidence Bouchard et al.
seek to have entered is evidence which should have been proffered
during the time period specifically set by the APJ for the parties to
address whether the examples in Chen et al.'s earlier filed
application actually produce compounds within the count. Further, the
evidence Bouchard et al. seek to enter is evidence taken by them to
support their preliminary motions against Hester et al., a third party
added to and then later removed from this proceeding. We fail to see
the relevance to this proceeding of evidence taken to support a motion
against a third party now in a different proceeding and not a party to
this proceeding. See page 15, paragraph 33 of Bouchard et al.'s motion
brief.
Bouchard et al. urge that we should overturn the APJ's
decision denying their motion to reopen essentially because the APJ
changed her mind. It is, of course, the propriety of the APJ's final
decision on this issue which we review, not her earlier oral rulings
made without the actual benefit of the motions and the evidence
supporting the motions. Bouchard et al. do not argue that the APJ
exceeded her authority by changing her decision.
In light of Bouchard et al.'s expressed position on this
49
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007