CHENEVEY et al. V. BAARS et al. - Page 20




              Interference No. 103,169                                                                                       


              ?redissolved” polymer (CB, paragraph bridging pages 9-10);                                                     
              and                                                                                                            
                      ...the events at Celanese show that Chenevey had a clear conception of the                             
                      Count by at least about January, 1983 when its proposal to the Air Force                               
                      was prepared.  See Chenevey Exhibit 1.....The technical details included the                           
                      evidence of Chenevey’s long experience with PBT including extruding by                                 
                      way of a mandrel die and blowing tubular film (Chenevey Exhibit 1, p. 2); use                          
                      of the polymerization mixture which had already been found by Chenevey to                              
                      be superior, Chenevey Exhibit 1, p. 5; and using a coagulation bath                                    
                      containing a phosphoric acid solution or merely water alone, Chenevey                                  
                      Exhibit 1, Page 8.  Chenevey already had knowledge of what worked and                                  
                      what did not (CB, page 45).                                                                            

                      Baars et al. argue that Chenevey et al. failed to establish a corroborated conception                  
              because of the lack of certainty as to the date of the proposal and the lack of corroboration                  
              thereof.                                                                                                       
                      Chenevey et al. rely upon pages 2, 5, 8 and 9 of CX 1 for conception.  In our view,                    
              the pages of the exhibit cited in the brief are not sufficient to establish  conception.                       
                                                       12                              13                                   
              Exhibits do not speak for themselves.   They require authentication  as to author, content,                    


                      12Amoss v. McKinley, 195 USPQ 452, 453-454 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1977).  The extent to                        
              which an exhibit is explained depends on the simplicity or complexity of the subject matter                    
              as well as the technical background of the tribunal hearing the case. Rivise, supra, Vol. III,                 
              § 435, page 1891.  The witness’s explanation as to authorship and content of a document                        
              is to be sufficiently clear and detailed as to specific entries in the exhibits relied upon by a               
              witness in order for the Board to make a proper analysis of the record.                                        
                      13Authentication is defined as ?genuineness” and is said to be established, when it                    
              is proved to be the thing it is supposed, or represented, to be.  Rivise, supra, Vol. IV, §563,                
              page 2148; see also FRE 901.  An exhibit may be authenticated by oral testimony of a                           
                                                                                                 (continued...)              
                                                             20                                                              





Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007