Interference No. 102,668
under 37 CFR § 1.204(c), the predecessor to § 1.608(b), "the
burden on [appellants] is not to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, but merely
to establish a prima facie case") (quoting Schwab v. Pittman,
451 F.2d 637, 640, 172 USPQ 69, 71 (CCPA 1971)).
Cavanagh also complains that McMahon never raised
the "in this country" issue before, never availed himself of
the opportunity to pursue this question during cross-
examination of Cavanagh's witnesses, and has not offered a
scintilla of evidence that the reduction to practice occurred
outside the United States. These arguments, too, are
unconvincing. While McMahon was obliged by § 1.672(c) to give
notice during Cavanagh's testimony-in-chief period of any
admissibility problems McMahon intended to raise at final
hearing, he was not required, prior to filing his brief, to
attack Cavanagh's evidence for failing to satisfy the
preponderance of the evidence standard. Nor was McMahon
required to file rebuttal evidence on this question. See
Linkow v. Linkow, 517 F.2d 1370, 1374, 186 USPQ 223, 226 (CCPA
1975) (no adverse inference can be drawn from failure of
senior party to present any testimony, because senior party
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007