Opinion ID: 775530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Motion

Text: 88 As with the evidentiary rulings, we review for an abuse of discretion the district court's denial of Superior's motion to amend judgment or for reconsideration. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1574, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1631 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (When considering issues which are not unique to our jurisdiction we defer to the law of the regional circuit.); In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 2000). As stated earlier, the district court denied the motion, stating that even if obtained with due diligence, [the questionnaire] does not add any new or different information from what was already known from the Certificate of Correction. Denial of Reconsideration, slip op. at 1. For the reasons articulated below, we find no abuse of discretion. 89 The questionnaire merely reflects the conclusions that the PTO must have come to in order to grant the certificate of correction. The district court presumed that the PTO had come to these conclusions and proceeded to find that such conclusions were in error. 90 Superior draws attention to the district court's statement that the PTO must have concluded that the error was of a 'minor character.' Opinion, 92 F.Supp.2d at 1009-10. Superior then argues that the questionnaire shows that statement to be false. This argument borders on the frivolous. The context of the district court's statement leaves absolutely no doubt that it is a statement of proposition, made in transitioning to a discussion of whether the alleged error is of minor character. Id. The district court is, in effect, stating that because the alleged error is not typographical or clerical, and because the PTO granted the certificate, we must assume that the PTO found the alleged error to be of minor character. The district court opinion then immediately begins explaining why the alleged error is not of minor character.