Interference No. 102,668
evidence of conception or diligence. Priority as to the
subject matter of the count therefore is being awarded infra
to McMahon, with the result that judgment is being entered
against all of Cavanagh's involved claims. Consequently, it
is not necessary to consider (a) McMahon's contention that
Jones's disclosures at Miami meeting constituted an actual
reduction to practice, (b) McMahon's contention that
Cavanagh's claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
and/or 103 over those disclosures, or (c) Cavanagh's motion to
suppress much of the evidence that McMahon relies on to
establish what was disclosed at the Miami meeting.
Nonetheless, in the interest of completeness we have
considered these issues.
Cavanagh's motions to suppress
McMahon's record consists of the first Jones
affidavit (which accompanied McMahon's initial § 1.633(a)
motion), Jones's deposition testimony, the Lindberg affidavit
that accompanied McMahon's belated § 1.633(a) motion, the
Schmid affidavit that was submitted with McMahon's first
request for reconsideration of the June 2, 1994, decision on
final hearing, and new affidavits by Jones, Chapman, and
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007