Interference No. 102,755
(b) Beck affidavit, NR 6-12, ¶¶ 7 and 9-25, and NE
10-34. Paragraph 7 is alleged to be irrelevant because it "is
no more than Becks' [sic] thoughts after hearing Nedelk's
alleged concept." In our view, Beck's understanding of10
Nedelk's concept is relevant to the question of whether Beck
can corroborate Nedelk's alleged conception. The objections
raised in paragraphs 9-25 are the same as those raised against
Nedelk's affidavit and are unconvincing for the reasons given
above.
(c) Gillespie affidavit, NR 14-17, all paragraphs,
and NE 35-45. Stimson objects to this affidavit as concerning
only Gillespie's alleged independent conception and thus being
irrelevant to Nedelk's priority case. In our view, the11
affidavit is relevant because Gillespie is being relied on to
prove he was told that Nedelk was the prior inventor of the
subject matter in issue.
(d) Zarembka affidavit, NR 21-23, all paragraphs,
and NE 53-276. Stimson argues that this affidavit is
irrelevant because it is "no more than Mr. Zarembka's views on
brake wear and brake systems on the Fokker 100[,] which arose
Id. at 11.10
Id. 11
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007