0
Lee motion to sapress
Lee moves to exclude paragraphs 69-90 of exhibit 2012, and exhibits 2025-2043 and
2048, documents relied upon by van Engelen in support of its preliminary motion 5. We find it
unnecessary to consider the specific objections to the admissibility of those exhibits, since van
Engelen failed to set forth a primafacie case of anticipation in its preliminary motion 5, even
assuming the exhibits to be admissible.
Lee seeks to exclude paragraphs 21-23 of exhibit 2050, as those paragraphs were relied
on by van Engelen in support of van Engelen's oppositions 3 and 5. Lee preliminary motions 3
and 5 were dismissed. Accordingly, there was no occasion to consider van Engelen's oppositions
3 and 5. Thus, we find it unnecessary to consider the specific objections with respect to exhibit
2050.
For these reasons, Lee's motion to suppress is dismissed.
D. Redeelaration of Interference
This interference is herein re-declared to the following extent:
The parties' claims corresponding to the count are:
Lee: 1-8
VanEngelen: 1-11
E. Judgment
Junior party van Engelcn has not alleged a date of invention or conception with respect to
the subject matter of the count prior to the senior party's earliest accorded benefit date of 4 April
-32-
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007