Interference No. 101,981
801(d)(1)(B), Federal Rules of Evidence.
Beyers states in his motion that BX-16 and BX-17 are
objected to as totally irrelevant because they deal with
materials which are different from those of the present
invention. The motion would have been denied as to BX-16 and BX-
17. As noted by Batlogg in his opposition, the exhibits are
relevant to the meaning of the phrase "allowed to cool to room
temperature." The meaning of the phrase is important with regard
to the sufficiency under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of the Batlogg
application.
Beyers requests that Batlogg exhibit BX-11 be suppressed
because it "has no foundation laid for it." Batlogg argues in
opposition that BX-11 is a published article that was introduced
at the party Beyers’ request. Beyers also objects to BX-13 on
the ground that "no foundation has been laid for it." Batlogg
exhibit BX-13 includes a letter from Walsh, counsel for Beyers,
to McDonnell, with a copy to counsel for counsel for Batlogg, and
an X-ray pattern. Beyers finally objects to BX-18, an article
from the New York Times, as being hearsay, irrelevant and non-
probative. Under other circumstances, the motion would have been
denied on these grounds with respect to these exhibits because
they would bear on, for example, the issue of sufficiency under
73
Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007