From:     burdlaw@hotmail.com
Sent:     Wednesday, 24 March 1999 23:46
To:  Interference Rules
Cc:  beb@hcmllp.com

The underlining in the html posting does not appear.

The change appears to be a needed one.  An interlocutory order which is 
erroneous as a matter of law in the Board's view should not have an 
abuse of discretion standard applied. The purpose of the interlocutory 
motions attorneys is to help the Board expeditiously move appeal and 
interferences to resolution, but that should not be at the expense of 
wrong decisions where the law is misapplied.  I agree that keeping  
procedural interlocutory orders should still be subject to the abuse of 
discretion standard to avoid parties taking resolved procedural matters 
to hearing and thus defeating the intent of expeditiously resolving 
Board cases.  It is a necessary compromise to allow the Board to 
function.  Not applying abuse of discretion standards to procedural 
matters would end up being more unfair to both the Board and the parties 
due to the increased delays in resolution that would seem to inevitably 
result.  This continuation of the abuse of discretion standard to will, 
of course, continue to place emphasis on proper procedure by parties and 
thus place importance on use of skilled advocates.  Again, that is 
probably in the interest of all concerned. 

Bruce Burdick, Reg. No. 27,422
One City Center - 24th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101-2409