Court Opinions
State Laws
|
PATENT INTERFERENCES NO. 102,922 & 103,088 DUMAS V. GILL - Page 13
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > PATENT INTERFERENCES NO. 102,922 & 103,088 DUMAS V. GILL - Page 13
Interference No. 102,922
Interference No. 103,088
admissibility. Salem v. Bendell, 217 USPQ 920, 924 (Bd. Pat.
Int. 1983); Hollis v. De Petris, 201 USPQ 871, 873 (Bd. Pat.
Int. 1977). Evidence is not ordinarily stricken for
irrelevance or questions of reliability; those go to the
weight rather than admissibility. Suh v. Hoefle, 23 USPQ2d
1321, 1329 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991); Halbert v. Schuurs,
220 USPQ 558, 561 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1983).
As to (4), the motion is dismissed. 37 CFR § 1.685(d).
Regarding the testimony of Techentin and the formula of the
count, Gill did not point to any objection in the record and
the Board can find neither an objection specific to this
testimony nor a specific ground of objection with respect to
the formula. See DR 299-302.
A review of the record (DR 303, 306-307, 310 and 311)
indicates that Gill later voiced objections during Techentin’s
testimony as to three unmarked documents. To wit, that Dumas
was “trying to get a document into the record when you know
our position on late-marked documents.”
Even assuming arguendo that these later objections, by
13
Page: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
