Interference No. 103,029
to the extent that it concerns an execution of the benefit
application papers prior to the filing date thereof, to prove
a conception prior to any communication from Barnhouse, is in
the nature of a priority case. Since Kipouras has disclaimed
any priority case at final hearing, we will not consider the
Richeson declaration as a priority case.8
Additionally, junior party Kipouras has filed a
motion under 37 CFR § 1.656(h) to suppress portions of the9
senior party’s evidence. The motion was opposed by the10
senior party. This motion to suppress will be considered
hereinbelow.
Decision on Kipouras Motion to Suppress Evidence
8 It appears that the declaration was entered during
the junior party’s rebuttal testimony period. Since it is
improper to introduce evidence pertaining to a party’s
priority case, i.e., its case-in-chief, during a rebuttal
period, we hold the Richeson declaration as ineffective to
move the junior party’s conception date to antedate the filing
date of the benefit application. It is noted that the junior
party did not move to reopen its testimony to allow
evidence relating to its case-in-chief, nor did it file for
permission to enter a belated paper.
9 Paper No. 76.
10 Paper No. 78.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007