Interference No. 103,197
benefit date. While the original preliminary statement42
precludes Morrison from proving dates prior to March 15, 1988,
it does not preclude him rom relying on earlier acts to prove
that date. Botnen v. Durnen, 179 F.2d 249, 252, 84 USPQ 270,
273 (CCPA 1949). Morrison’s § 1.635 motion for leave to file
a corrected preliminary statement accordingly is dismissed as
moot.
Furthermore, had Morrison’s § 1.635 motion for leave to
rely on the new preliminary statement not been dismissed as
moot, it would have been granted. The reasons given in
Buschmann’s motion to suppress for opposing Morrison’s motion
are not entitled to consideration, because they should have
been presented in an opposition to that motion rather than in
a motion to suppress. Compare Bayles v. Elbe, 16 USPQ2d 1389,
1391 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (party whose motion was
denied cannot present at final hearing reasons in favor of
granting the motion which were not included in the original
motion) (citing Fredkin v. Irasek, 397 F.2d 342, 346, 158 USPQ
280, 284 (CCPA), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 980, 159 USPQ 799
The March 15, 1988, date also precedes the earliest42
date given in Mannheimer’s preliminary statement (paper No.
15), i.e., October 21, 1988.
- 24 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007