E. Chang's principal brief
As earlier noted, only Chang filed a brief on the issue of
priority. There is much about Chang's principal brief with which
we disagree. For example, we disagree with Chang's construction
of the scope of the count (brief, pages 4-5). We further
disagree that any activity by Chang prior to the time he hired
his patent attorney is corroborated. We believe the discussion,
apparently related to suppression and concealment, is essentially
irrelevant since the only significant dates are those after Chang
hired his patent attorney. Accordingly, while we hold that Chang
has sustained his burden, we base our holding solely on the facts
and rationale set out above. Otherwise, we essentially disagree
with arguments made on behalf of Chang in his principal brief.
F. Judgment
Upon consideration of the record, and solely for the reasons
given herein, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1
(Paper 1, page 49), the sole count in the interference, is
awarded against senior party Kenneth B. Winer.
FURTHER ORDERED that senior party Kenneth B. Winer is
not entitled to a patent containing claims 1 and 6-25
(corresponding to Count 1) of application 08/769,467, filed
20 December 1996.
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made
of record in files of application 08/769,467 and U.S. Patent
5,828,034.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007