Interference No. 103,029
948, 951, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pats. 245, 251 (D.C. Cir 1925). A
satisfactory showing under the rule must include evidence that
the party was not negligent in preparing the original
statement and the error could not have been avoided by the
exercise of due care. See Rivise and Caesar, Interference Law
and Practice §100, Vol. I, p. 278 (Michie Co., 1940). In the
more recently reported cases, the requirement outlined above
has been followed, and the rule and its predecessor have been
construed strictly. In fact,
the predecessor to 37 CFR § 1.628 (37 CFR § 1.222) has been
interpreted to "require a showing demonstrating that the
moving party was not negligent in preparing the original
preliminary statement and that the error could not have been
avoided by the
exercise of due care" if the motion were "filed after the
preliminary statements were approved and their contents known
to the parties." Fleming v. Bosch, 181 USPQ 761, 763 (Bd.
Pat. Int. 1973). Cf. Chan v. Kunz, 231 USPQ 462, 471 (Bd.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007