Interference No. 103,379 Decision on Reconsideration 3). Dance's reliance on the preliminary statement is improper because it is not evidence. 37 CFR § 1.629(e). Furthermore, the contention that the evidence establishes an actual reduction to practice fails because this evidence does not establish that (1) prior to Seifert's filing date, Dance constructed an embodiment that met every element of the interference count and (2) this embodiment operated for its intended purpose. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097, 53 USPQ2d 1696, 1698 (Fed. Cir. 2000). B. The timeliness of Dance's motion to strike the initial reissue declarations of Seifert, Downey, and Shank At pages 31-33 of the Decision, we held that Dance has not shown good cause under § 1.645(b) for waiting five and one-half months after the oral hearing to file the motion to strike the initial reissue declarations of Seifert, Downey, and Shank on the ground that they contain inadmissible hearsay due to absence of a supporting declaration by Seifert's counsel, Mr. Bookstein. We treated this motion as a motion to suppress evidence under § 1.656(h), which specifies that such a motion is due with the moving party's opening brief. Dance's argument that the motion should be considered timely because "it was only from and after that October 14, 1999[,] - 5 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007