Interference No. 101,981
performed on March 10, 1987 and a copy is enclosed.
The March 10 x-ray diagram is enclosed but Qadri objects to it
because, among other reasons, it has never been authenticated
(i.e., "no foundation has been laid for it"), and there is no
record of the sample from which the x-ray was taken. Beyers (BaR
374) themselves objected to this exhibit (see motion to suppress
evidence under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.635 and 1.657(h); paper no. 220(2)
– see motion (6) below). Batlogg filed an opposition (paper no.
226) to this motion to which Qadri has filed a reply (paper no.
240). We note that Batlogg relies on Exhibit BX13 (BaB 45) to
argue that Beyers had a date of conception and reduction to
practice no earlier than March 10, 1987. This motion is
therefore relevant to Beyers case for priority.
The motion is dismissed as moot as to BX-13 because we have
not considered BX-13 in reaching our decision.
WHETHER QADRI ENGAGED IN INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Batlogg has raised an issue (BaI3) and filed a Motion ( BaM1)
for Judgment against Qadri under § 1.633(a)(paper no. 195) on
grounds that Qadri’s claims that correspond to the count are not
patentable to Qadri due to Qadri’s inequitable conduct.
Batlogg’s motion and a supplement to the motion were filed (April
78
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007