Interference 103,579
amylose content, viscosity and storage stability experiments”
because it purportedly contains inadmissible hearsay under
Federal Rules of Evidence 601 and 802 (Paper No. 118). For
reasons stated herein above, we did not consider this evidence in
deciding the issues before us at final hearing. Accordingly,
Visser’s third motion to suppress evidence (Paper No. 118) is
DISMISSED.
(4) Visser has moved to suppress “the portion of the
redirect examination of Lars Rask relating to Hofvander
Documentary Exhibit 45 (HR 165, l. 19 - HR 169, l. 14) on the
grounds that this portion of the redirect examination is beyond
the scope of the cross-examination and . . . comprises
inadmissible hearsay” under Federal Rules of Evidence 601, 611
and 802 (Paper No. 119). For reasons stated herein above, we did
not consider this evidence in deciding the issues before us at
final hearing. Accordingly, Visser’s third motion to suppress
evidence (Paper No. 118) is DISMISSED.
4. Disposition
It is
ORDERED that, on the record before the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, there exists no interference-in-fact
between subject matter defined by Claims 1, 4, 6-23 and 50 of
Hofvander’s U.S. Application 08/070,455 and Claims 1, 4-8, 11,
13-20, and 22-27 of Visser’s U.S. Application 08/294,619 because
-129-
Page: Previous 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007