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 13Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007