Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
75. SX 2057 (corrected) covers pages 81 to 102 (pre-
numbered), 26 July 1996, through 4 September 1996, of a notebook,
which appears to be the continuation of "Notebook No. 9".
76. Pages 81–102 are signed and dated as in SX 2058,
"Notebook No. 9".
77. Page 81 is dated "7/26/96". (SX 2057).
78. Page 102 is dated "9/4/96". (SX 2057).
79. Pages 81–102 also bear the witness signature of
Catherine E. Blackwell and the witness date of "5/8/97". (SX
2057).
Campbell case for priority
80. Campbell rests its case for priority on its British
Application No. GB 95 17779.6 (CX 1003), filed 31 August 1995,
the benefit for priority of which it has been accorded.
(Campbell Principal Brief on Priority, Paper 99 at 2.)
81. Stice has not filed a brief in opposition to Campbell's
case in chief for priority.
III. Discussion
The senior party in an interference is presumed to be the
first inventor. 37 CFR § 41.207(a)(1) (2004)3. The junior party
3 New regulations governing interferences before the United States Patent
and Trademark Office were published at 69 Fed. Reg. 49,960 (12 August 2004),
effective 13 September 2004. Except in those instances in which a party would be
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007