Interference No. 102,668
the invention set forth in each and every count alleged in the
Amendment attached hereto," because a copy of the amendment
was not included among Cavanagh's exhibits for consideration
at this final hearing.
The factual allegations McMahon seeks to strike were
made in response to McMahon's argument (Br. at 17-19) that
Cavanagh's evidence fails to establish that the acts relied on
to prove priority occurred in the United States, as required
by 35 U.S.C. § 104. Those allegations are as follows:15
(1) "The location for these acts [of conception
and reduction to practice] was the Hazeltine
facilities located in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts." (Reply Br. at 4.)
(2) "Party Cavanagh, III's date of conception
and reduction to practice occurred in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the declared
dates." (Id. at 5.)
(3) "Hazeltine Corporation is a U.S. corporation
with headquarters located at 450 E. Pulaski Road,
Greenlawn, N.Y. 11740. Hazeltine's EASL facilities,
where the date of invention was established, are
located in Braintree and Quincy, MA. EASL had no
facilities outside of Massachusetts at the time of
the date of invention.” (Ibid.)
Subject to a number of exceptions that both parties agree15
do not apply to either party in this interference, § 104 specifies
that "an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish
a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or
other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country."
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007