Interference No. 103,379
Decision on Reconsideration
the exception of objecting under § 1.672(c) to its
admissibility if he intended to later move under § 1.656(h)4
to suppress it on that ground. As Seifert filed no such
motion, he was not required to file a § 1.672(c) objection.
Seifert's contention that Dance's testimony about the
documents cited as proof of diligence lacks
corroboration does not raise an admissibility issue and thus
need not have been noticed by way of an objection under
§ 1.672(c). Also, the admissibility of the documents
themselves was never at issue, because they were not included
in Dance's record.
Dance alternatively argues that a showing of
diligence is unnecessary because the drawings which we held
are sufficient to prove conception as of October 9, 1989, are
also sufficient to establish an actual reduction to practice
as of that date in accordance with Dance's preliminary
statement, which asserts that the invention was actually
reduced to practice on or before March 15, 1990 (Request at 2-
Admissibility is governed by the Federal Rules of4
Evidence, which are made applicable to interference proceedings by
§ 1.671(b).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007