Interference No. 103,675
satisfy part of the requirements of the rule. Additionally, as noted
by Bouchard et al., Chen et al. have utterly failed to address let
alone satisfy the requirements of the last sentence of Federal Rule
807. Finally, as we observed above, there has been no adequate
authentication of Ms. Wei's notebooks and the associated scientific
data.
According to Chen et al., Bouchard et al. did not object to
the authenticity of CX 326 at the time it was proffered during the re-
direct of Dr. Chen by Mr. Taylor. Chen et al. urge that for that
reason the Bouchard et al. motion to suppress should be denied with
respect to CX 326. But Bouchard et al. did object to CX 326 as being
inadmissible hearsay, on the record, during Dr. Chen's testimony. See
CR 1771, lines 20 through 23; CR 1777, line 23 through 1778, line 8.
Bouchard et al.'s timely objection on the record for any reason under
the Federal Rules was all that was required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.656(h)
to preserve their right to move to exclude the exhibits in question.
CX 85
As a separate issue, Chen et al. urge that we should not
exclude CX 85, which is admitted by Chen et al. to be hearsay, because
Bouchard et al. failed to timely object to its admissibility. 37
C.F.R. §§ 1.656(h) and 1.658(d). Chen et al. cite to Flehmig v.
Giesa, 13 USPQ2d 1052, 1056 n.7 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989) in support
68
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007