Interference No. 103,322
We further note the statements of Musil with respect
to his notebook pages. LX-3 (called exhibit C in the
declaration). These entries were placed in the notebook on
June 24, 1989. The next activity recorded in the senior
party’s record was produc- tion of drawings of the invention
on October 10, 1989 and January 30, 1990 by Welling. LX-5
(called exhibit E). LR12.
According to Linkletter and Musil, sometime in
February 1990 a working model of the veil modification device
was installed and operated in a plant in Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. LR7, LR4. LX-2 (exhibit B) is stated to be a
memo from Linkletter to Welling about the plant. LR4.
Linkletter argues that the operation of a plant in the
Netherlands in February constitutes a reduction to practice of
the subject matter of the interference.
Linkletter cannot be credited with a reduction to
practice as of February based on operation of a plant in
Holland. It is axiomatic that, at the time of the test,
testing performed abroad to prove that an invention worked for
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007