CHILD et al. V. KOLAR et al. - Page 6




          Interference No. 102,408                                                    



               (4) Should the rebuttal testimony of senior party Kolar                
                    be stricken as improperly executed?                               
               (5) If the rebuttal testimony of Kolar is not stricken,                
                    does it rebut the priority case of Child?                         
               Kolar's brief raises the following issues (KB1-2):                     
               (6) Has junior party Child established, by a                           
                    preponderance of the evidence, an actual reduction                
                    to practice of the subject matter of the count prior              
                    to Kolar's effective filing date of September 3,                  
                    1984?                                                             
               (7) Does the testimonial evidence submitted by junior                  
                    party Child enable the skilled artisan to conclude                
                    that the invention of the count was reduced to                    
                    practice by the junior party prior to Kolar's                     
                    effective filing date of September 3, 1984?                       
               (8) Has junior party Child abandoned, suppressed or                    
                    concealed the invention of the count?                             
               (9) Has senior party Kolar properly filed the                          
                    declaration of Dr. Cenek Kolar as rebuttal testimony              
                    under 37 CFR   1.672(b)?                                         
               (10)      Does the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Kolar                     
                         effectively support Kolar's allegations with                 
                         respect to Child's priority case?                            
               In addition, Child filed a motion to strike the rebuttal               
          testimony of Dr. Cenek Kolar (Paper Nos. 63 and 64) which was               
          opposed by Kolar (Paper Nos. 68 and 69).  Kolar filed a motion              
          to suppress evidence under 37 CFR  1.656(h) (Paper No. 85)                 
          which was opposed by Child (Paper No. 89).                                  

                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007