Interference No. 102,572
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’ oral
testimony.
23
While the record index, page v, refers to CX-20 as Cabilly’s notebook, Cabilly
himself provides no testimony regarding the identity of the exhibit, the specific entries in
the exhibit or any date the work was done except for his initial statement of when he
received the cells. No other declarant identifies this exhibit. Our review of CX-20 shows
that it consists of a series of loose-leaf pages that are unsigned and unwitnessed. The
24
entries on the pages are either pasted in or handwritten and are difficult to read and
understand because of legibility as well as the extensive use of abbreviations and
acronyms. While a few pages appear to bear dates, the dates on the pages are not in
chronological order. (See for example Feb. 8, 83 (Bates page 991) and Jan. 21, 83
(Bates Page 998). We find CX-20 unauthenticated and of no probative value.
The record index, pages iv and v, identifies CX-11 and CX-13 as Holmes’
notebook and CX-12 as Wetzel’s notebook. Wetzel does not identify CX-12 as his
notebook and makes no mention of this exhibit in his declaration. Holmes parenthetically
refers to CX-11, 12 and 13 in his declaration but never identifies these documents as his
23Notebooks are not self-authenticating. FRE 902.
24Where a party submits a handwritten exhibit, the Board should not be expected to
decipher it. If the exhibit is a handwritten document, a typed copy of the document 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).
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007