Interference No. 103,586
various pages of the notebooks/exhibits. This explanation provides the opponent party
and the Board a basis to determine whether the witness’ testimony is supported by
contemporaneous documentation or whether a party is relying upon the witness’s oral
testimony.
While, Reiss himself indicates that exhibit 32 is a copy of his laboratory notes from
11
August 89 into early October 89 , he provides no testimony regarding the specific entries
on the exhibit and how such entries support his testimony. Our review of exhibit 32, pages
35-39, shows that it consists of a series of unnumbered loose pages that are unsigned and
12
unwitnessed. The pages(35, 36, 38 and 39) are handwritten and contain abbreviations
and acronyms. Loose-leaf pages 38-39 appear to contain autoradiograms. Some
pages(35, 38-39) bear a date of September 25, 1989, another (page 37) 9/26 and
another (page 36) undated. While pages 38-39 bear a date of 9/25/89; they also refer to
either “expo: 2 days” or “expo: 3 days” which terms were not explained. In view of the fact
that Reiss failed to adequately explain Exhibit 32 as to its content and time and to explain
in detail how specific entries on the document support his testimony, we find the exhibit
unauthenticated and of little probative value.
Even if were to assume that this exhibit were adequately explained by Reiss, it
Notes and notebooks are not self-authenticating. FRE 902.11
Where a party submits a handwritten exhibit, a typed copy of the document12
should be provided on a separate piece of paper and attached to the exhibit. Cf. Latimer
v. Wetmore, 231 USPQ 131 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985)
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007