Interference No. 104,403
the time of the filing of the preliminary motion. The senior party made
no such request. We will not consider additional evidence as it is
directed to this motion unless the senior party has shown good cause
why the evidence was not submitted with the motion. (See Standing
Order paragraph 20.2.2).
The senior party states that the new evidence on which it wishes
to rely comprises the testimony of its own expert and the testimony of
the junior party. Firstly, the senior party has not shown good cause why
the testimony of its own expert could not have been submitted with the
motion. Secondly, the senior party has not shown good cause why it
did not request permission to take testimony pursuant to 37 CFR
§1.635 prior to the filing of the preliminary motion to obtain the
testimony of the junior party. Absent a sufficient showing of good
cause, this evidence will not be considered at this point in the
proceeding.
The motion is denied.
Rosenthal Motion No. 6
In this motion Rosenthal argues that Magee engaged in
inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the Magee ‘519
application, by deliberately concealing his knowledge of the Rosenthal
lenticular patents, i.e. U.S. Patent Nos. 4,034,555 and 4,541,727 and
52
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007