Interference No. 103,352
Cf. White v. Habenstein, 219 USPQ 1213, 1215-16 (Bd. Pat. Int.
1983). Of course, the weight to be accorded these documents is
quite another matter as discussed infra. See White v.
Habenstein, 219 USPQ, at 1217-18.
VI.
Khokhar's request to return the Maeda reply associated with
Maeda's motion to suppress will be treated as a miscellaneous
motion and, as such, is summarily dismissed for failure to comply
with 37 CFR 1.637(b). In any case, the request is moot in view
of the dismissal of Maeda's motion to suppress.
VII.
After a thorough evaluation of all the evidence of record in
this proceeding in light of the opposing positions taken by the
parties in their briefs, we conclude that Khokhar has failed to
establish an actual reduction to practice of the invention
defined by the count prior to March 6, 1985 for lack of adequate
corroboration.
Khokhar, as the junior party, has the burden of proving
prior inventorship by a preponderance of the evidence. Peeler v.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007