Interference 103,685
noted. Riggins stated its objection to the admissibility of the
evidence as follows (Paper No. 109, p. 2, “Statement of the
Objection”):
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.672(c), Riggins et al.
hereby object to “Holsten et al.’s Rule 671(e) Notice
of Intent To Rely on Previously Filed Exhibits” in that
this notice was not timely filed in accordance with
Rules 671(e) and 672(b). Since the notice was not
timely filed by Holsten et al., Holsten et al. should
not be permitted to rely on Exhibits 1-5 in further
proceedings before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences.
Not having filed a motion under 37 CFR § 1.635 to suppress
this evidence with its opening brief, we presume that Riggins
does not now want the Board in rendering its final decision
to rule on the admissibility of Holsten’s Exhibits 1-5.
Moreover, having considered all the evidence of record in this
interference, including Holsten’s Exhibits 1-5, priority of
invention with respect to the subject matter defined by Count 2
has been awarded against party Holsten. Accordingly, the matter
is dismissed as essentially moot.
E. Prior decisions on motions
We have considered all matters raised in the parties’ briefs
for final hearing. Prior decisions on motions and other matters
not raised at final hearing have not been reviewed and are hereby
adopted as rendered and made final.
-66-
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007