Interference No. 103,270
Therefore, senior party Coelho will prevail by virtue of
having the earlier effective filing date unless Keith et al.
can establish conception prior to Coelho's conception, coupled
with reasonable diligence during the critical period of from
just prior to Coelho's conception until the filing date of the
Keith et al. benefit application (their constructive reduction
to practice). 35 U.S.C. § 102(g); Boyce v. Anderson, 451 F.2d
818, 820, 171 USPQ 792, 792-93 (9th Cir. 1971); Keizer v.
Bradley, 270 F.2d 396, 397, 123 USPQ 215, 216 (CCPA 1959).
Since the involved cases of the parties are both applications,
Keith et al. have the burden of proving priority by a
preponderance of the evidence. 37 CFR § 1.657(b); Oka v.
Youssefyeh, 849 F.2d 581, 584, 7 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
The relevant dates alleged by the parties in their
preliminary statements are:
Keith et al. Coelho
First Drawing Oct. 3, 1988 (chalkboard) Dec. 2,
1988
Dec. 1, 1988 (paper)
First Written Description Oct. 3, 1988 and Dec. 2,
1988
Dec. 1, 1988
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007