Interference No. 103,675
interlocutory decisions rendered by the APJ; a request under 37 C.F.R.
§1.655(c); and, a motion to strike certain evidence proffered by Chen
et al. with a reply to certain Bouchard et al. oppositions to
preliminary motions.
Because the Chen et al. motion for benefit, if granted,
would make Chen et al. the senior party and Bouchard et al. the junior
party and would place the burden of proof on priority to Bouchard et
al., we shall first decide the deferred motions for benefit based on
the arguments and evidence proffered by the parties in their
respective briefs. Although there are two motions for benefit, the
applications for which benefit is sought have the identical
disclosures. Therefore, in our decision which follows, we shall decide
both motions based on Chen et al.'s first filed application for which
benefit is sought.
THE TESTIMONY
We feel compelled to comment on the testimony as it has been
presented in the parties' respective records and referenced in their
briefs. In any future proceedings, the parties should always keep in
the mind that it is the testimony of the WITNESSES which is of
importance and relevant to the trier of fact, not the colloquy between
the respective legal counsel. The interference rules (37 C.F.R. §
1.675(c)) require that after an objection is made the testimony be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007