Interference No. 102,668
As additional evidence of the alleged actual
reduction to practice, Cavanagh relies on the testimony of
Moore, who at the time of the alleged reduction to practice
was Director of Engineering at the EASL Division of Hazeltine
(CR 11, para. 3). Moore testified that on or about
September 16, 1988, he received from Cavanagh a copy of the
memorandum identified as Exhibit G, which "describ[es] a [sic,
an] edge driven bar transducer and the test results obtained
from that device" (CR 10, para. 1). Cavanagh does not
contend, and no witness testified, that the device and tests
described in this memorandum are those that were observed by
Packard in August 1988. Instead, as explained infra, Cavanagh
relies on Moore's opinion about the success of the tests
described in this memorandum as evidence of the success of the
tests observed by Packard (Open. Br. at 10-11; Reply Br. at
6).
McMahon attacks Cavanagh's evidence of an actual
reduction to practice on a number of grounds, the first being
that it fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that the acts relied on to prove prior invention occurred in
the United States, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 104. This issue
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007