Interference No. 103,272
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the party Heuschen has sustained its
burden to establish an actual reduction to practice prior to the effective filing date of the
party Okamoto.
ISSUE (5) - BEST MODE
We hold that the party Okamoto has not sustained its burden to show that the
involved Heuschen application fails to set forth the best mode contemplated by the
inventors for carrying out their invention.
The party filing the motion, here the party Okamoto, has the burden of proof
by a preponderance of the evidence. Kubota v. Shiyuba, 999 F.2d 517, 519 n.2, 27
USPQ2d 1418, 1420 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To meet its burden, the party Okamoto must
present evidence which prima facie demonstrates that the Heuschen inventors knew of
and concealed a better mode for carrying out the claimed invention than they disclosed in
their involved application. Engel Industries Inc. v. The Lockformer Co.,
946 F.2d 1528, 1531, 20 USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Fed. Cir.1991); Chemcast Corp. v. Arco
Indus. Corp,, 913 F.2d 923, 927-28, 16 USPQ2d 1033, 1036-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
Randomex, Inc. v. Scopus Corp., 849 F.2d 585, 588, 7 USPQ2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
The best mode issue, raised by the party Okamoto, concerns the failure of
the party Heuschen to disclose in its involved application the particular method for
manufacturing para-cumyl phenol endcapped polycarbonate resin, i.e., the use of General
-20-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007