Interference No. 101,981
Count 1 by March 2, 1987. Accordingly, Qadri's case for prior
conception coupled with reasonable diligence from March 2, 1987
until their reduction to practice during the period of April 6 to
April 10, 1987 has not been established.
Beyers’ Case For Priority
We have reviewed the issues (BaI5) regarding Beyers’
conception and find that Beyers cannot establish a date of
conception prior to Batlogg’s date of constructive reduction to
practice.
Beyers alleges a date of conception that is not earlier than
any date Batlogg alleges for their conception or reduction to
practice, actual or constructive. If Batlogg is entitled to the
subject matter of the count, Beyers cannot prevail. Batlogg,
as the senior party, is presumptively entitled to an award
of priority, and [Beyers], as the junior party in an
interference between pending applications, must overcome the
presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Morgan v.
Hirsch, 728 F.2d 1449, 1451, 221 USPQ 193, 194 (Fed. Cir.
1984); 37 CFR §1.275(a) (1983). In the event of a tie,
therefore, priority must be awarded to the senior party.
Oka v. Youssefyeh, 849 F.2d at 584, 7 USPQ2d at 1172.
Notwithstanding Batlogg’s alleged earlier actual reduction to
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007