Interference No. 103,169
need not be relied upon to prove any fact of consequence to this proceeding.” We find
that Chenevey et al. improperly introduced these exhibits in rebuttal, failed to comply with
§ 1.673, and failed to timely file a §1.635 motion for consideration of these exhibits. For
the foregoing reasons, the motion to suppress Exhibits 37-39 and related testimony is
granted.
As to the remaining Exhibits 18-20, 26-28, 30a, 31-33, Baars et al. request
suppression for a number of reasons: hearsay, not a business record, document
tampering, untrustworthiness and that the original document (video tape (30a)) was never
produced. To the extent that Baars et al. timely and properly objected to the exhibits on the
ground of hearsay, the exhibits will be admitted merely to show that the statement was
made, but not for the truth of its contents. Reports of scientific research and tests by the
inventor(s) are not business records; they are no more than the inventor’s work or progress
reports and as such are self-serving documentation. Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 895,
134 USPQ 296, 300 (CCPA 1962). All of the above mentioned exhibits and other exhibits
of record identified only by coinventors Chenevey or Kafchinski are entitled to no weight
since they have not been authenticated as to date or content by evidence independent of
the inventor. Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1233, 211 USPQ 936, 947 (CCPA 1981).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007