Interference No. 103,270
cannot prevail because they have failed to prove, by
corroborated evidence, the exercise of diligence from "just
prior" to Coelho's conception date.
Conclusion
In summary, we conclude that:
(1) Coelho conceived the invention of count 2 as of December
2, 1988;
(2) Keith et al. conceived the invention of count 2 as of
October 3, 1988;
(3) Keith et al. did not exercise reasonable diligence from
just prior to December 2, 1988.
Judgment
In view of the foregoing, Peter A. Keith and Daniel
O. Adams, the junior party, are not entitled to a patent
containing claims 26, 27, 51, 52 and 60 of their involved
application, designated as corresponding to the count. Donald
A. Coelho, the senior party, is entitled to a patent
containing claims 38, 40, 55 and 57 of his involved
application, designated as corresponding to the count.
29
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007