Interference No. 103,322
Here again, Linkletter and Musil have failed to provide any
corroboration of the testing in March that was alleged to have
established the reduction to practice. Secondly, Linkletter
and Musil are again relying on conclusory statements instead
of underlying facts. As noted above, such conclusory
statements cannot provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for
us to determine a reduction to practice has occurred.
Accordingly, we cannot credit the
senior party with a reduction to practice based on inventive
acts said to have occurred in March 1990. Consequently, it is
our determination that the senior party reduced the invention
to practice constructively by filing their application on
May 25, 1990.
Senior Party Diligence
Based on our findings and conclusions above, we note
that the junior party was the first party to reduce to
practice,
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007