(122) Interference Practice: Matters Relating to Belated Preliminary Motions In some interference proceedings, evidence which would provide a basis for a preliminary motion under 37 CFR 1.633 does not come to light until after a decision on preliminary motions has been entered. For example, a party may conclude, after hearing the opponent's testimony, that the opponent's application or patent does not comply with the "best mode" requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph; or a prior art reference may be found which the party could not previously have located. The purpose of this notice is to clarify the policy of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences as to what steps the party must take if it wishes to have an issue based on such evidence considered by the Board. If the time for filing preliminary motions has expired, and then evidence comes to light which in the opinion of a party would provide basis for a preliminary motion under 37 CFR 1.633, that party may not simply raise the matter in its brief at final hearing for the Board's consideration. Rather, it is the policy of the Board that it will not consider the matter unless the party files promptly after the evidence becomes available: (1) the appropriate preliminary motion under 37 CFR 1.633; and (2) a motion under 37 CFR 1.635 showing sufficient cause why the preliminary motion was not timely filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.645(b). This motion must include the certificate required by 37 CFR 1.637(b). If either party believes that additional evidence or discovery concerning the matter raised by the motion(s) is necessary, motions (1) and (2) should also be accompanied by or responded to by such other motions as may be appropriate, as for example, motions under 37 CFR 1.651(b) (4) or 1.687(c). Oct. 6, 1992 SAUL I. SEROTA Chairman, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences [1144 OG 8]