Interference No. 103,169
(1) the testimony of Chenevey (CR 3: 226, 228-231); and
(2) (a) Exhibits 18 and 21[sic: 31] and Exhibits 19 and 27, respectively to
establish a reduction to practice on January 7, 1983, and February 10, 1983
(CB. page 10),
(b) Exhibits 28, 20, 32 and 33 and “related testimony” for a reduction to
practice on October 5, 1983 (CB, pages 11-12), and
(c) Exhibit 33, samples 32621-7-1 through 7 and Exhibit 8, page 3 for
properties of 32621-7-2, and 6 for reduction to practice no later than
November 6, 1983, and December 83, respectively (CB 12).
We have carefully reviewed this testimony and the referenced exhibits but do not
find that Chenevey et al. have sustained their burden of proof to establish an actual
reduction to practice.
The Chenevey et al. Exhibit 8 is a progress report with a cover letter signed by
Timmons. The Chenevey et al. Exhibits 18, 20, 26, 28, are notebook pages signed by
Chenevey or both Chenevey and Kafchinski. Chenevey et al. Exhibits 19, 27, 31 are
unsigned notebook pages presumably written by the inventors; and Chenevey et al.
Exhibits 32 and 33 are loose pages unsigned and unwitnessed.
We do not find that these exhibits aid the Chenevey et al. case. As we noted
earlier, exhibits do not speak for themselves. Amoss, 953 F.2d at 617, 21 USPQ2d at
1274. The only testimony offered by Chenevey et al. in their brief and with regard to these
exhibits was that of coinventor Chenevey. Thus, these exhibits have not been
authenticated as to date and content by evidence independent of the inventor and they,
35
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007