Interference 103,781
in view of Barton’s prior invention of subject matter within the
scope of Count 2] And To Obtain Related Discovery (Paper
No. 199). Adang’s Request For Authorization To Address The
Unpatentability Of Fischhoff’s Claims [under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)
in view of Barton’s invention of subject matter within the scope
of Count 2] And To Obtain Related Discovery (Paper No. 199) was
not filed in the time period set in the Decision and Order On
Preliminary and Miscellaneous Motions and Requests (Paper
No. 148) and was properly denied for that reason alone (Paper
No. 212). Nevertheless, justice demands consideration whether
Adang’s belated request then should have been and/or now should
be excused for good cause (37 CFR § 1.645(b)). Looking for such
good cause, we turn to Adang’s brief at final hearing.
Initially, we find Adang’s “Catch-22" argument to be a fact-
deficient presentation of the events leading to the denial of
Adang Request For Authorization To Address The Unpatentability Of
Fischhoff’s Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) in view of Barton’s
invention of subject matter within the scope of Count 2 And To
Obtain Related Discovery (Paper No. 199). Adang failed to
mention that the APJ had set a time period for the parties to
request permission to file additional preliminary motions and
explain why the additional motions requested were necessitated by
redeclaration of the interference with new Count 2 and Barton as
-186-
Page: Previous 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007