Interference No. 103,169
for judgment that Chenevey et al. claims 1-26 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Harvey, U.S. Patent No. 4,939,235. Chenevey
et al. did not argue the merits of the motion and the APJ, in charge of the interference,
granted the motion for judgment, yet permitted Chenevey et al. to take testimony to
antedate the reference (Paper No. 14).
4
The following issues are before us:
(A) Does the Chenevey et al. record establish derivation on the part of
Baars et al. and, if so, is derivation defeated by an earlier conception by
Baars et al.
(B) Does the Chenevey et al. record establish a reduction to practice of the
subject matter of the count.
(C) If the answer to (B) is yes, did Chenevey et al. abandon, suppress or
conceal the invention.
(D) Does the Chenevey et al. record effectively remove the Harvey patent
as a reference against the Chenevey et al. claims.
Additionally, the following matters have been raised:
4 The Chenevey et al. brief does not set forth a statement of issues for decision in
the interference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.656(b)(2) (1994). In order to not further delay a decision in
this interference, we have considered the issues of reduction to practice, derivation and
conception.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007