Interference No. 103,891
We further agree with Flanders that Moorman has not
laid out in his brief at the first paragraph of page 5 how any of
the alleged reductions to practice satisfy the requirements of
the count. Instead, this panel is expected to dig through
Moorman’s record to establish Moorman’s priority case. 17 For
example, Moorman’s brief refers to a reduction to practice on
June 14 and references ¶ 41 of Lisa Terrett’s declaration at
MR23. However, ¶ 41 is but one sentence long. It cannot possibly
explain how MX-18 establishes a reduction to practice. 18 Like-
wise, note the alleged reductions to practice on June 23, July 1,
July 28, August 19, September 21, and November 4. 19 The alleged
17 Conclusions of fact and law made without appropriate
citation to the record or citation of authority will be taken as
mere attorney argument. Cf. Ex parte McCullough, 7 USPQ2d 1889,
1892 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988); Ex parte Meyer, 6 USPQ2d 1966,
1968-69 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988); In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859,
866, 146 USPQ 284, 289-90 (CCPA 1965).
18 The significance of documentary and other exhibits must
be discussed with particularity by a witness during oral deposi-
tion or in an affidavit. See Notice of Final Rule, 49 Fed. Reg.
48416, 48428 (Dec. 12, 1984), reprinted in 1050 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 385, 397 (Jan. 29, 1985); Popoff v. Orchin, 144 USPQ 762
(Bd. Pat. Int. 1963) (unexplained experimental data should not be
considered); Chandler v. Mock, 150 F.2d 563, 66 USPQ 209 (CCPA
1945) (records standing alone were held to be meaningless); and
Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157, 45 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1940) (unex-
plained tests in stipulated testimony are entitled to little
weight). See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29
(CCPA 1974) and Triplett v. Steinmayer, 129 F.2d 869, 54 USPQ 409
(CCPA 1942).
19 Actually, the alleged reductions to practice on these
(continued...)
25
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007