Interference No. 103,345
prove a date of invention must have occurred in the United
States. 35 U.S.C. § 104.12
Roberge argues that he is entitled to a judgment of
priority based on the introduction of a conception of the
invention into this country on or about June 16, 1992, coupled
with reasonable diligence during the thirty-nine day critical
period that runs from just prior to Staples's November 12,
1992, filing date up to Roberge's December 21, 1992, filing
date, citing 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) and Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d
1058, 1061, 32 USPQ2d 1115, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Staples
argues that he has shown a conception date prior to Roberge's
conception date and is therefore entitled to priority as the
first to conceive and the first to reduce to reduce to
practice, citing Sherman v. Hope, 161 F.2d 263, 268, 73 USPQ
387, 392 (CCPA 1947).
Roberge alternatively argues that he is entitled to
an award of priority because Staples abandoned, suppressed, or
concealed the invention after achieving an actual reduction to
Subject to a number of exceptions that do not apply to12
Roberge in this interference, § 104 specifies that "an applicant
for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention
by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with
respect thereto, in a foreign country."
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007