Interference No. 103,675
We have not overlooked Bouchard et al.'s various arguments
concerning alleged oral representations made by the APJ in certain
telephonic conferences. We simply remind Bouchard et al. that all
business with the PTO should be conducted in writing and that no
attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation or
understanding in relation to which there is disagreement. See 37
C.F.R. § 1.2. Further, as the interference rules themselves suggest,
(see, for example, 37 C.F.R. §§1.618 and 1.646) an interference is
conducted on the written record based on the papers filed and served
by the parties to the proceeding.
We find it difficult to understand Bouchard et al.'s
argument concerning how the APJ's treatment of their various requests
for reconsideration is relevant to the issue before us. By Bouchard et
al.'s own statement of the facts, their second request for
reconsideration was denied and they withdrew their third request for
reconsideration.
As for Bouchard et al.'s alleged "reliance" on the APJ's
representations, we first observe that some of the evidence sought to
be entered was the evidence taken by Bouchard et al. to support a
motion against Hester et al. in another proceeding. As we understand
Bouchard et al.'s explanation of the facts, that evidence had been
filed in the other proceeding in November 1999. Accordingly, Bouchard
52
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007