InLe--ference No. 104,068
Sink filed a timely response and a motion for testimony
under 37 CFR § 1.635 (Paper No. 62). Sink's response and motion
for tescimonv are both fatally flawed and, therefore, are
dismissed for the following reasons:
The response to the show cause order does not request that, a
final hearing be set to review any decision which is the basis
for the show cause order, or to review any other issue decided in
the associated Decision on Motion (Paper No. 58). Rather, for
the first time in these proceedings, Sink raises the issue of
"prosecution laches" as a basis for challenging the patentability
of Scorc's involved claims. According to Sink, the doctrine was
articulated by the Federal Circuit in Symbol Technoloaies, Inc.
v. Lemelson Med Educ. and Res. Fdn., 277 F.3d 1361, 61 USPQ2d
1515 (Fed. Cir. 2002) , and extended in in re Bogese, 303 F.3d
1362, 64 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cases decided on January
24, 2002 and September 13, 2002, respectively.
Sink has not shown good cause why the issue of "prosecution
laches" could not have been raised earlier in these proceedings
by way of a miscellaneous motion under 37 CFR § 1.635.
Accordingly, the belatedly raised issue of "prosecution laches"
will not be considered in this proceeding. 37 CFR § 1.645(b).
Furthermore, we note that even if Sink had raised the
"laches" issue in a timely manner, the burden would have been on
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007