Interference 103,579
and subject matter claimed in either of Hofvander’s involved
application or Hofvander’s patent (DISMISSED).
3. Motions to suppress evidence
A. Hofvander Motion To Suppress Evidence (Paper No. 123)
Hofvander has moved to suppress paragraph 11 of the
Declaration of Peter M. Bruinenberg (VAX 1) because it
purportedly contains inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rules of
Evidence 601 and 802 (Paper No. 123). For reasons stated herein
above, we did not consider paragraph 11 of the Declaration of
Peter M. Bruinenberg (VAX 1) in deciding the issues before
us at final hearing. Accordingly, so far as it relates to
paragraph 11 of the Declaration of Peter M. Bruinenberg (VAX 1),
Hofvander’s motion to suppress evidence is DISMISSED.
Hofvander’s motion to suppress evidence also contains the
following arguments (Paper No. 123, para. 6-10):
6. Moreover, the Declaration as a whole is not
reliable. The First Bruinenberg Declaration is filled
with errors and inconsistencies. For example, in
Paragraph 8, Dr. Bruinenberg stated that he has
allegedly compared the gene sequence in the Hofvander
application [SEQ ID No. 5] versus the gene sequence in
the Visser application. Dr. Bruinenberg concluded that
there were 4,707 matches, 92 mismatches and 762 unmatched
base pairs. However, the total of those three numbers
is greater than the 4,964 nucleotides in Hofvander SEQ ID
No. 5. Moreover, the Visser sequence of Figure 3 is
even shorter than the total number of matches that are
said to be between the two sequences. . . . .
7. A further example in the Declaration is where
Dr. Bruinenberg stated that the Hergersberg antisense
sequence and Sequence ID No. 1 of the Hofvander
-126-
Page: Previous 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007