Interference No. 103,270
motions under § 1.633, each party may file a preliminary
statement" precludes extension of the time for filing
preliminary statements to a date beyond that set for filing
preliminary motions. We do not agree. Although the times for
filing preliminary motions and preliminary statements are
normally set in the declaration notice to coincide, neither
§ 1.621(a) nor any other provision of the rules requires that
if the latter time is extended, the former time must be.
Section 1.621(a) is permissive, not mandatory, in that it
merely provides that a preliminary statement may be filed
during the time set for filing preliminary motions. Under §
1.645(a), "a party may file a motion (§ 1.635) seeking an
extension of time to take action in an interference." We find
nothing in § 1.621(a) or in any other
rule to indicate that this provision of § 1.645(a) is
inapplicable to the time for filing a preliminary statement
which was initially set under § 1.611(d)(1).
As noted above, Keith et al. also allege that the
extension of Coelho's preliminary statement period was
prejudicial to them. However, Keith et al. do not specify,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007