BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 17




                Interference 102,728                                                                                                          
                         The original merits panel also noted Singh’s argument that                                                           
                                 in support of its Motion (2) and its Reply to Singh Opposition to Motion (2),                                
                                 Brake submitted a total of eight declarations.  At the time of submission,                                   
                                 Singh did not have the opportunity to cross-examine these declarants                                         
                                 regarding their supporting declarations.  The APJ, inter alia, in view of                                    
                                 these supporting declarations granted Brakes [sic, Brake’s] Motion (2)                                       
                                 over Singh’s timely filed opposition.  After the APJ’s ruling, Brake withdrew                                
                                 four of these supporting declarations, including two submitted by Dr.                                        
                                 Brake, the inventor.  The Board should reconsider the APJ’s decision in                                      
                                 light of Brake’s withdrawal of these declarations from its case in chief                                     
                                 [Brief, p. 45].                                                                                              


                         Like the original merits panel we, too, find this objection puzzling.  Final Decision,                               
                Paper No. 164, pp. 7-8.  We note that Brake elected to rely solely on the declarations of                                     
                Drs. Tekamp-Olson (2), Johnson (1) and Schekman (1) for its case-in-chief.  See Brake                                         
                Notice Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.671(e), submitted in Paper No. 130.  Thus, although                                             
                Singh does not indicate which declarations it is objecting to the “removal” of, it appears                                    
                that Singh is referring to the declarations of Drs. Brake (2) and Mullenbach (2).11  Paper                                    
                No. 151, p. 45.                                                                                                               
                         To that end we are in agreement with the original merits panel’s statement (Final                                    
                Decision, Paper No. 164, pp. 7-8) that:                                                                                       
                                 ... it is not clear whether Singh is objecting to the "removal" of the                                       
                         declarations of Dr. Brake, and/or Dr. Mullenbach, because he had intended to                                         


                         11 We note Singh’s statement on p. 54 of its Brief (Paper No. 151) that the                                          
                declarations of Drs. Schekman and Tekamp-Olsen are the only declarations submitted                                            
                to support Brake’s position that the ‘325 Application provides an adequate written                                            
                description of a species within the scope of the count.  Singh does not mention the                                           
                declarations of Drs. Johnson and Mullenbach.  As we understand it, Dr. Johnson’s                                              
                declaration was relied upon by Brake for it’s case-in-chief.                                                                  
                                                                     17                                                                       





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007