CHENEVEY et al. V. BAARS et al. - Page 21




              Interference No. 103,169                                                                                       


              and date.  They must be explained even if they contain a label and a date.  Further, 37                        
                              14                                                                                             
              CFR §1.671(f)  requires a witness to explain the entries on the various pages of a                             
              notebook/exhibit.  This explanation provides the opponent party and the Board a basis on                       
              which to determine whether the witness's testimony is supported by contemporaneous                             
              documentation, or whether a party is relying upon the witness's oral testimony and whether                     
              corroboration is necessary.  Herein, Chenevey et al. offer no testimony to authenticate                        
              Exhibit 1 (CX 1) and to corroborate the Chenevey et al. alleged conception.  Counsel’s                         
              conclusory statement, in the Chenevey et al. brief,  that the document shows each                              
              specified limitation of the count is unsupported by any reference to the record which                          
              provides an explanation as to how the relied upon portions of the document satisfy the                         





              (...continued)                                                                                                 
              witness, but not by the uncorroborated testimony of the party on whose behalf it is offered                    
              in evidence.  Hence, a witness must properly identify the exhibit as to what it is as well as                  
              to explain the witness's relationship to the document in question.   In addition, authenticity                 
              of an exhibit must be established both as to subject matter (content) and time.  Extrinsic                     
              evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required for self-                   
              authenticating evidence.  See FRE 902.  Notebooks are not self-authenticating.  Id.                            
                      1437 CFR § 1.671(f) states that ?[t]he significance of documentary and other                           
              exhibits shall be discussed with particularity by a witness during oral deposition or in an                    
              affidavit.”  See Notice of Final Rule at 48447, column 3, 1050 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 416.                   
              In 1984 the rules were amended to require the particularized explanation of material in                        
              non-self authentication documents.  The commentary explained that  ?[B]y providing in the                      
              rules that documentary evidence must be explained, the PTO hopes to save both parties                          
              and the Board considerable difficulty in presenting and evaluating evidence.”                                  
                                                             21                                                              





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007