Interference No. 101,981
35 U.S.C. § 112 of Batlogg’s claimed composition.
Motion QM1
Qadri (paper no. 217(1)) moves under 37 C.F.R. § 1.656(h)
“to exclude from evidence the following exhibits which have been
offered into evidence by the Party Beyers et al: Exhibit Be 34,
Exhibit Be 35, and Exhibit Be 36. These exhibits were submitted
by Beyers during Qadri’s rebuttal for the purpose of impeaching
Qadri witness Lloyd. In her declaration (QR 647-8), Lloyd stated
that based on her “experience, a standard single step calcination
procedure as described in the IBM application . . . does not
produce phase orthorhombic, superconducting Ba 2YCu3O7.” To
contradict Lloyd’s opinion, Beyers (QR 870-1) submitted
publications (Exhibits Be 34-36). Qadri objected to their
introduction during the rebuttal testimony period and hereby
moves under 37 C.F.R. §1.656(h) on the grounds that Beyers’
exhibits were not identified and not used to impeach Lloyd; Qadri
indicates that no question was asked of Lloyd as to whether the
exhibits contradicted her opinion. Beyers filed an opposition
(paper no. 228) and Qadri filed a Reply (paper no. 242). We note
that Beyers mentions these exhibits in their reply brief (BeRB
74
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007