Interference No. 103,197
(1968) (alleged lack of support for limitation in count 4 was
not raised by a motion and the therefore is not entitled to
consideration)). Also compare Koch v. Lieber, 141 F.2d 518,
520, 61 USPQ 127, 129 (CCPA 1944) (board need not consider new
arguments at final hearing in support of motion to dissolve).
Furthermore, a motion to suppress is an inappropriate
vehicle for challenging the corrected preliminary statement
because motions to suppress concern the admissibility of
evidence and a preliminary statement is not evidence. See
§ 1.629(e) ("A preliminary statement shall not be used as
evidence on behalf of the party filing the statement.").
E. Buschmann’s motion to suppress Morrison's priority
evidence
For the following reasons, Buschmann’s motion to suppress
Morrison's priority evidence is dismissed or denied in all
respects.
1. The November 24, 1987, drawing (MX 42)43
Buschmann’s contention that the November 24, 1987,
drawing is inadmissible is unconvincing for the reasons given
above.
Morrison Exhibit.43
- 25 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007