Interference No. 103,146
The junior party’s involved patent was copending
with respect to the senior party’s involved application’s
parent case. Accordingly, for the junior party to prevail,
the junior party must prove priority of invention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d
647, 651 n.5, 190 USPQ 117, 120 n.5 (CCPA 1976). Accord,
Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-42, 30 USPQ2d 1862, 1864
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Cf. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1191, 26
USPQ2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conception has been defined as the formation, in the
mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the
complete and operative invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d
353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(quoting Gunter v.
Stream, 573 F.2d 77, 80, 197 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1978)). It
is
settled that in establishing conception a party must show
every feature recited in the count, and that every limitation
in the count must have been known at the time of the alleged
conception. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007