Interference No. 101,981
is that their invention was an inevitable consequence of those
activities, we are not convinced that Qadri presented the earlier
dates based on such flimsy and unsupportable evidence that bad
faith intent amounting to inequitable conduct was involved.
Moreover, we do not find that Qadri’s stipulation of the earlier
date has had a material impact on the interference proceedings.
“Inequitable conduct requires proof by clear and convincing
evidence of a threshold degree of materiality of the nondisclosed
or false information.” Atlas Powder Company v. E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours & Company, 750 F.2d 1569, 1577-78, 224 USPQ 409, 414-415
(Fed. Cir. 1984). For the foregoing reasons, we deny the motion.
WHETHER QADRI VIOLATED § 1.615
Beyers filed a motion (BeM3; paper no. 245) for judgment
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.635 for judgment against Qadri under 37
C.F.R. § 1.616 for violation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.615. The motion is
directed at Qadri’s continuation application Serial No.
07/587,46626 and Qadri’s parent application Serial No. 07/292,067, the latter is a divisional of
Serial No. 07/158,483 involved in the interference. According to Beyers, both applications were
26 Now U.S. Patent 5,106,829, issued April 21, 1992.
81
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007