Interference No. 102,668
1977); and Rebuffat v. Crawford, 68 F.2d 980, 982,
20 USPQ 321, 324 (CCPA 1934). Introduction of the
invention into this country on behalf of the
inventors must be judged by what knowledge was
imparted to others and by the items brought into the
U.S. by Lofdahl. Micheletti v. Tapia, 196 USPQ 858
(Bd. Pat. Int. 1976).
The alleged unpatentability of Cavanagh's
claims over disclosures made at the Miami meeting
To prove that Cavanagh's involved claims are
unpatentable over disclosures made by Jones at the Miami
meeting, McMahon relies alternatively on the following
evidence:
(a) the first Jones affidavit and the Jones
deposition testimony, which is the evidence previously
considered in the June 2, 1994, decision on final hearing;
(b) the foregoing evidence plus the Lindberg
affidavit, which was submitted with McMahon's denied belated §
1.633(a) motion; and
(c) all of the foregoing evidence plus the Schmid
affidavit (initially filed with McMahon's first request for
reconsideration of the June 2, 1994, decision on final hearing
and refused consideration on the ground that it is improper to
submit new evidence with such a request) and the new
- 31 -
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007