|
|
Court OpinionsState LawsUS CodeUS Constitution |
PATENT INTERFERENCES NO. 102,922 & 103,088 DUMAS V. GILL - Page 14Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > PATENT INTERFERENCES NO. 102,922 & 103,088 DUMAS V. GILL - Page 14
Interference No. 102,922
Interference No. 103,088
inference, referred to Techentin’s testimony at DR 299-302, we
would deny the motion. FRE Rule 612 permits the use of a
document to refresh one’s memory and an adverse party is
entitled to “...inspect it, to cross-examine the witness
thereon, and to
introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the
testimony of the witness.” The record is clear that Gill did
not ask to inspect the document nor did he introduce the same
into the record.
Gill argues that the Techentin testimony "cannot be
considered as simply refreshing Mr. Techentin's recollection
because cross-examination showed that Techentin never had
original individual knowledge to be refreshed.” We cannot 6
agree with Gill's argument. Initially we point out that Gill
placed no objection on the record regarding the use of the
document to refresh one’s memory. Moreover, in our view,
Gill’s question and
6Gill asked Techentin on cross-examination “Was your
sketching of this formula based upon the formula Mr. Bernstein
showed you and on your reading of Exhibit 17?” Techentin
answered “Yes”. DR 367-368.
14
|