Interference No. 103,345
that the absence of the models and the photographs "makes it
difficult, if not impossible for Roberge to respond to the
allegations made in [Jeffrey Staples's] Supplemental
Declaration regarding their significance" (Motion at 3)
suggests Roberge also is seeking to suppress those parts of
the declaration on the ground that they do not describe the
models with the particularity required by § 1.671(f). This
reliance on § 1.671(f) is misplaced, because it applies to
exhibits and the models are not exhibits. The question of
whether Jeffrey Staples's declaration testimony describes the
models with sufficient particularity goes to that testimony's
weight, not its admissibility. As a result, the motion to
suppress is denied to the extent it seeks to suppress Jeffrey
Staples's testimony describing the models.
The parties' cases for priority
Both parties' involved cases are applications. As a
result, Roberge, the junior party, is required to establish
priority by only a preponderance of the evidence. 37 CFR
§ 1.657(b); Morgan v. Hirsch, 728 F.2d 1449, 1451, 221 USPQ
193, 194 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Inasmuch as Roberge resides in
Canada, it is necessary to note that the acts relied on to
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007