Interference No. 104,290
section, no testimony on the part of Edwards was contemplated and
Edwards was not given a time period for introducing any evidence.
However, when the panel determined a limited priority testimony
period was necessary, Edwards was given a time period for entry
of rebuttal evidence. It was during this period that Edwards
provided notice under 37 CFR § 1.671(e) that he intended to rely
on the Daniel declaration during his duly authorized testimony
period. It is clear that the Administrative Patent Judge (APJ)
in charge of the interference afforded LeVeen the opportunity to
cross-examine Edwards' witnesses in the order issued August 22,
2001. Accordingly, the Daniel declaration meets the requirements
of 37 CFR §§ 1.671 and 1.672. Furthermore, inasmuch as LeVeen
was afforded a period to request cross-examination of the wit
ness, we can see no reason why the Daniel declaration should be
suppressed. LeVeen, the moving party, has not satisfied his
burden, and LeVeen Motion 15 to suppress the declaration of
Daniel is DENIED,
LeVeen Motion 16 to Suppress Testimony of Hansen
LeVeen also moves (LeVeen Motion 16) to suppress the
testimony of Edwards' witness Hansen. LeVeen argues that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007