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                                                                            





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007