Interference No. 103,169
the following information (1) where in the Chenevey et al. brief, Chenevey et al. relied upon
the exhibits now subject to the Baars et al. motion to suppress, (2) where in the Baars et al.
record, Baars et al. placed an objection and (3) what that objection was. Baars et al. filed
a paper (Paper No. 124) indicating that of the Exhibits subject to the motion to suppress,
Chenevey et al. relied upon Exhibits 18-20, 26-28, 30(a), 32-33, and 37-39 in his brief.
The motion to suppress Exhibits 40-42 is dismissed as moot in view of the fact that
Chenevey et al. did not rely upon these exhibits in their brief. Photis, 225 USPQ at 950.
Baars et al. submit that Chenevey et al. did not rely upon exhibit 31 in their brief, we note
however a reference to Exhibit 21(CB 10). The substance of the discussion at page 10
indicates that Exhibit 21 is a typographical error and should read Exhibit 31.
This leaves for our consideration the motion to suppress as to Exhibits 18-20, 26-
28, 30a, 31-33 and 37-39.
As to Exhibits 37-39, Baars et al. move to suppress these exhibits because
Chenevey et al. failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.673, which requires a party to serve an
opponent with a copy of any evidence prior to the deposition testimony. Chenevey et al.
were on notice to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.673(c)(2) and acknowledged the same. See
Paper No. 22, pages 2-3. Chenevey et al. did not comply with the rule or file a §1.635
motion to have the evidence considered. Further, Chenevey et al. acknowledge that
Exhibits 37-39 ?are merely cumulative to evidence of record and
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007