Interference No. 103,169
therefore, are entitled to no weight.
The Chenevey et al. brief (CB 10 and 11) refers to “related testimony.” However,
such a broad reference to general testimony does not satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.656(b) as to briefs (see footnote 15, supra). It is not incumbent upon the Board to
search the record for the testimony alluded to in the brief.
Since Chenevey et al. have not established an actual reduction to practice of the
subject matter of the count, the issue of abandonment, suppression and concealment is
deemed moot.
VI.
Since Chenevey et al. have not established derivation or an earlier reduction to
practice, the issue of whether the Chenevey et al. record has removed the Harvey
reference is deemed moot.
36
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007