Interference No. 102,668
that the existence of a fact is more probable than its
nonexistence).
Cavanagh's priority evidence consists of the
previously filed § 1.608(b) affidavits by Cavanagh, Packard,
Pelrin, DiCaprio, Moore, and Frazer, whom McMahon elected not
to cross-examine. Cavanagh argues that he conceived the
invention on July 27, 1988, reduced it to practice on August
26, 1988, and was diligent during the one-month period between
these dates. We will begin by considering whether evidence
proves an actual reduction to practice, which is an essential
element of Cavanagh's case for priority.16
To establish priority based upon an alleged actual
reduction to practice, Cavanagh is required to prove, inter
alia, that he constructed a transducer meeting every
limitation of the count and that it worked for its intended
purpose. Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, 3 USPQ2d
1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Cavanagh concedes that testing
Cavanagh does not alternatively argue that he is entitled16
to priority based on conception plus diligence from just prior to
McMahon's entry into the filed up to Cavanagh's filing date.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007