Interference No. 101,981
Batlogg's declaration testimony and were filed with the
declaration testimony. Batlogg points out in his opposition to
the motion that rule § 1.672(b), which relates to affidavit or
declaration testimony, states that a party shall not be entitled
to rely on a document referred to in the affidavit unless a copy
of the document is filed with the affidavit. Batlogg urges that
he has complied with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.672(b).
We agree with Batlogg that exhibits which are referred to in the
declaration testimony and are duly filed with the declaration
testimony have been offered into evidence according to the rules,
and we will not suppress such documents on the ground that they
have not been offered into evidence.
Beyers also urges that Batlogg Exhibits BX-1, BX-3, BX-4,
BX-5, BX-9, BX-10, BX-14 and BX-15 are incompetent because they
had portions missing from them. The motion would have been
denied to the extent that it urges that the Batlogg exhibits
should be suppressed because portions of the exhibits were
redacted. As pointed out by Batlogg in his opposition, Batlogg
"relied only on those portions of notebooks and records of
experiments that were deemed relevant to this interference." We
will not suppress documents merely because portions are redacted,
provided that the opposing parties are free to inspect the
71
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007