preponderance of the evidence even assuming Anderson's exhibits
1029-1031, 1033 and 1034 to be admissible.
Accordingly, Snitzer's miscellaneous motion 10 to suppress
is dismissed as moot.
Snitzer's Miscellaneous Motion to Suppress Hill's evidence
Snitzer moves to have certain ones of Hill's exhibits
excluded from consideration (Finding 124). Hill exhibits 2008,
2030, 2046, Attachment I to 2046, Attachment II to 2046, 2057,
2059, and Anderson Ex. 1024 were apparently not relied upon by
Hill to demonstrate conception and/or derivation, nor were they
considered in rendering our decision regarding Hill's case of
conception and/or derivation.
Furthermore, Hill's case of diligence was found not to be
persuasive since Hill failed to sufficiently demonstrate acts of
diligence from 8 September 1992 until 29 October 1992. Hill's
demonstration of reduction to practice on 8 September 1992 was
rejected, since Hill failed to demonstrate that the testing
described in the Hill manuscript was actually performed,
corroborated, and performed in the U.S.
Thus, we find it unnecessary to consider the specific
objections to the admissibility of Hill's exhibits 2008, 2030,
2046, Attachment I to 2046, Attachment II to 2046, 2057, 2059,
and Anderson Ex. 1024, since Hill has failed to demonstrate a
prior reduction to practice or diligence by a preponderance of
56
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007