Interference No. 101,981
been offered into evidence. The failure to state on the record
that the exhibit is "offered into evidence" is not considered to
be so defective as to warrant the exhibit's exclusion from
consideration, where the exhibit was marked for identification
and testimony was taken with respect thereto. Clevenger v.
Martin, 1 USPQ2d 1793, 1799 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
Motion BeM2
Beyers (paper no. 220(2)) also moves under 37 C.F.R.
§§ 1.635 and 1.656(h) to suppress evidence by Batlogg - Exhibits
BX-1 through BX-18 on various grounds including hearsay, no
foundation, incompetent or irrelevant. Batlogg filed an
opposition (paper no. 224). Beyers did not file a reply. The
motion against Batlogg urges, inter alia, that Batlogg's
Exhibits BX-1 through BX-18 "have not been offered into evidence"
and should therefore be suppressed. The motion is dismissed
because we have not had need to refer to these exhibits in
reaching our decision. Under other circumstances, the motion
would have been denied to the extent that it is based on the
contention that Exhibits BX-1 through BX-18 have not been offered
into evidence.
Batlogg Exhibits BX-1 through BX-18 were attached to
70
Page: Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007