Interference 103,781 a junior party (Paper No. 148). Adang’s shorthand version of the events of record defies excuse. Secondly, the APJ had ordered Adang to indicate what motions, for example a renewed motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for discovery and judgment that Fischhoff’s claims designated as corresponding to the interference count are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 in view of the possible prior invention thereof by Barton, were required and to explain why they were necessary. Apparently, Adang belatedly came to think that it had not adequately responded to the APJ’s order within the time period set. However, Adang has never adequately explained why it failed to do so. This failure is yet another basis to deny the request, for no “good cause” has been shown to excuse the lapse. Adang’s Brief at Final Hearing suggests that a motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for discovery and judgment that Fischhoff’s claims designated as corresponding to the interference count are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 in view of the possible prior invention thereof by Barton was not required before Monsanto elected Fischhoff as first to invent the subject matter of Count 2 as between Barton and Fischhoff. According to Adang, the new or renewed motion and request were not appropriate before Monsanto elected Fischhoff as first to invent the subject matter -187-Page: Previous 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007