Interference 103,781
relied upon in support of its request to file a new, or refile a,
belated motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment and possible
discovery that Fischhoff’s claims corresponding to Count 2 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)/103 in view of the
possibility of Barton’s prior invention thereof.
Adang has not shown how the interest of justice requires
further delay and further burdening Monsanto with discovery or
remanding the case to the primary examiner. Nor has Adang
provided any plausible reason to suspect Monsanto did not in good
faith elect Fischhoff, as between Barton and Fischhoff, as first
to invent the subject matter of Count 2 of this interference. We
agree with the APJ that Adang’s suspicions are too thin a basis
to justify the “possible” discovery it seeks or show good cause
why its belated request should be honored. Adang has failed to
show that the APJ’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Adang’s
requests stand DENIED.
6. Fischhoff Motion to Suppress Evidence
We have endeavored to consider all the documentary and
testimonial evidence and arguments filed in support of the
parties’ arguments and positions in this interference. We have
been especially considerate of the specific documentary and
testimonial evidence to which Adang points in support of its
arguments. Moreover, Fischhoff’s Motion To Suppress Evidence
-192-
Page: Previous 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007