Interference No. 103,878
and minimize delay and inconvenience to the parties and the
Board. See Dreikorn v. Barlow, 214 USPQ 632, 635 (Comm'r
Pats. & Trademarks 1981) and Larkin v. Kauder, 202 USPQ 193,
199 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1978). The parties do not have the
authority to waive the rule in this regard.
Turning to the specifics of the junior party motion,
page JP117, taken individually, and pages JP89-117, taken
collectively, as referred to in the senior party’s brief are a
proper part of the junior party’s record and cannot be
suppressed simply because the senior party cites to the record
to show that the junior party has failed to make out a case.
The request to suppress JP228-29 because it
ostensibly assumes facts not in evidence is unsupportable on
its face. The Milling declaration identifies Thompson and
states that Milling had been to Thompson’s place of business.
It is difficult to see how it can be argued that there is no
foundation for a question in cross-examination about how long
Milling has known Thompson.
As to JP251-52, the testimony here is concerned with
Henson not Thompson, and the arguments in the motion to
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007