Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
Conclusions
As we have stated repeatedly in other cases, we shall not
act as an advocate for either of the parties. When arguing a
case concerning a rapidly developing, complicated, highly
technical art, it is particularly important to explain how the
evidence of record relates to the critical legal issue — here,
the counts. The opposing party may then admit or deny the
validity of the evidence and its relevance to the issues,
providing its own evidence, including expert testimony, if
appropriate. Following a reply, the tribunal is then in some
reasonable position to weigh the merits of the arguments and to
determine whether the moving party has carried its burden.
Although Stice's Reply Brief, Paper 106, offers considerably more
detailed argument than in its Principal Brief, to the extent it
attempts to establish a prima facie case of priority, or any of
the underpinnings, it is untimely, and we shall not consider
them. No good cause has been shown to present new arguments. It
is fundamentally unfair to sit back and wait for an opposition,
and then attempt to put together a prima facie case in reply,
when the opposing party has no opportunity to contest the belated
and newly presented arguments.
-28-
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007