Interference No. 102,922
Interference No. 103,088
count 1 and count 2 together in their respective briefs and we
will do likewise.
The counts in both interferences are in the disjunctive
form. In ‘922, the first section of count 1 is Gill's claim 3
(referred to by the parties as the Gill version) and the
second section is Dumas' claim 1 (referred to by the parties
as the Dumas version) and the first section of count 2 is
Gill's claim
14 (Gill version) and the second section is Dumas' claim 10
(Dumas version). In ‘088, the first section of count 1 is
Dumas' claim 16 (Dumas version) and the second section is
Gill's claim 1 (Gill version). Both sections of each count
define the same patentable invention. To prevail, Dumas must
establish priority or derivation (originality) of at least one
section of each count before March 8, 1990. 7
Derivation and priority are distinct concepts.
7Dumas has cited an unpublished nonprecedential opinion to
support his position that he need only show priority with
respect to one section of the count sans limitations that are
not found in the other section. The citation of such opinion is
inappropriate and nonbinding on this record.
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007