Appeal No. 2005-0823
Application No. 10/300,895 Page 41
Nor are we persuaded by appellant's assertion (brief, page
18) that the assertions of IATA are double and triple hearsay.
The statements in the reference appear on their face to be
accurate and reliable and no evidence has been offered to
demonstrate that they are not; see In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559,
1565, 31 USPQ 2d 1817, 1821 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In addition, the
court stated “[t]he general rule is that administrative agencies
like the PTO are not bound by the rules of evidence that govern
judicial proceedings. see 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law
Section 345, at 350 (1994): Ernest H. Schopler, Annotation,
Comment Note. –-Hearsay Evidence in Proceedings Before Federal
Administrative Agencies, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 76 (1971); see also Fed.
R. Evid. 1101 (omitting administrative proceedings as coming
within the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence).
Agencies may provide for the application of evidence rules, as
the PTO has so provided in patent interference proceedings, 37
C.F.R. Section 1.671(b)(1993), and patent public use proceedings,
id. Section 1.292(a), both of which are inter partes in nature.
Since, the PTO has not, however, provided for the application of
evidence rules during ex parte examination and [d]uring ex parte
PTO examination, applicants are free to investigate hearsay
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007