Interference No. 101,981
57). However, since we have not relied on these exhibits or that
portion of Beyers’ reply brief, in reaching our decision, this
motion is dismissed.
Motion QM2
Qadri (paper no. 217(2)) moves under 37 C.F.R. § 1.656(h)
“to exclude from evidence all testimony by Dr. Stuart S. P.
Parkin and Robert B. Beyers relating to magnetization tests of
sample 4 and sample 5, and testimony based on these tests, which
has been offered into evidence by the Party Beyers et al.”
Samples 4 and 5 are two in a series of samples of 1-2-3
superconductor material that Beyers prepared in accordance with
Batlogg’s specification but under various cooling conditions (BeR
467-9). Based on Parkin’s Declaration (BeR 506), for example,
Beyers concludes that % superconductivity cannot be determined
from x-ray diffraction data. Beyers relies on diamagnetic
shielding susceptibility and electrical resistivity data instead.
Qadri seeks to obtain the underlying data substantiating these
conclusions which they say they have not received.
Beyers filed an opposition (paper no. 228) stating that
Qadri has been given all the diamagnetic shielding susceptibility
information they need to calculate the % superconductivity of the
samples.
75
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007