Interference No. 103,446
Both parties filed briefs and Sanns filed a reply
brief. Both parties appeared for oral argument at final
hearing represented by their respective legal representatives.
No issue of interference-in-fact was raised.
The sole issue presented for our consideration in
this proceeding is priority of invention.
Sanns presented a record including deposition
testimony and associated documentary exhibits in support of
their case for priority . Martinez has elected to rely on his3
October 17, 1988, benefit priority date in this interference.
Sanns, as the junior party whose application was
copending with Martinez' U.S. application which matured to
Martinez' involved U.S. patent, bears the burden of proving
his case for priority by a preponderance of the evidence.
Morgan v. Hirsch, 728 F.2d 1449, 221 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir.
1984); Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647, 190 USPQ 117 (CCPA
1976).
References to the Sanns record will be designated3
as SR, followed by the record page number, and references
to the Sanns exhibits will be designated SX,
followed by the exhibit number.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007