1 indication that prior to filing the motion counsel for Dawson (Albin J.
2 Nelson, Esq. and Janet E. Embretson, Esq. of Schwegman, Lundberg,
3 Woessner & Kluth, P.A) made any attempt to contact counsel for Dallavalle
4 to determine if there might be an objection to the Board granting the relief to
5 be requested. The rules require that there be a consultation. 37 C.F.R.
6 § 41.123(b)(1). There was no consultation. Third, the motion seeks
7 extensions of time for Time Periods 1-3 and to produce copies of known
8 prior art. If a party is conceding priority, we can divine no reason why any
9 extension of time should be requested or granted. The motion for an
10 extension of time is dismissed (1) for failure to comply with the rules and
11 Standing Order and (2) as unnecessary, if not frivolous.
12 (3)
13 We next consider the Dawson communication regarding 35 U.S.C.
14 § 135(c). Paper 36. The communication states that no agreement or
15 understanding with respect to settlement or collateral agreements has been
16 negotiated or reached. We have no idea why we need to know the
17 information provided in the communication. Filing the communication was
18 a waste of the Board's time and resources and of those of Dallavalle.
19 (4)
20 The next order of business is the Dawson request for ruling regarding
21 revised post conference call order of August 30, 2007. Paper 33. The
22 request appears to ask for clarification of what might happen if Dawson files
23 a reissue application post-interference. In its opposition, Dallavalle states
24 that there is no need for a ruling regarding the post conference call order of
25 August 30, 2007. Dallavalle also notes that there is no reissue application.
26 To be sure, no reissue application is involved in the interference and there
27 has been no motion to add a reissue. We agree with Dallavalle that there is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013