Interference No. 103,446
the count before Martinez' effective filing date of October
17, 1988, coupled with reasonable diligence just prior to
October 17, 1988, up to a reduction to practice (constructive
or actual) by Sanns. Jepson v. Egly, 231 F.2d 947, 109 USPQ
354 (CCPA 1956); Hull v. Davenport, 90 F.2d 103, 33 USPQ 506
(CCPA 1937); Wilson v. Sherts, 21 F.2d 1070, 28 USPQ 379 (CCPA
1936).
SANNS' CASE FOR PRIORITY
In his preliminary statement (Paper Number 8), Sanns
alleges he conceived of the invention of Count 1 in this
interference "on or about February 5, 1986" (see paragraph 6
of Paper Number 8) and that the "[a]ctive exercise of
reasonable diligence toward reducing the invention to practice
began on or about February 5, 1986" (see paragraph 8 of Paper
Number 8). Additionally, Sanns alleges that the invention "was
first actually reduced to practice on or about February 5,
1986" (see paragraph 7 of paper Number 8).
In his brief, however, Sanns has chosen to proceed
solely by attempting to prove that he is the first inventor of
the subject matter of Count 1 by proving an actual reduction
to practice prior to Martinez' effective filing date of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007