Interference No. 103,197
advised by the APJ’s scheduling order mailed June 26, 1995,55
which set times for taking testimony and filing records and
briefs, that the remainder of the interference would be
governed by the interference rules as extensively amended
effective April 25, 1995, citing Patent Appeal and
Interference Practice -- Notice of Final Rule (hereinafter,
1990 Final Rule Notice), 60 Fed. Reg. 14,488 (March 17, 1995);
1173 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 36 (April 11, 1995).
Thus, unless noted otherwise, all references to the
interference rules are to the amended rules.
H. Morrison's case for priority
Morrison and Yue argue that they are entitled to an56
award of priority because they conceived the invention prior
to Buschmann’s March 24, 1988, German benefit date, and
achieved an actual reduction to practice in February prior to
that date. Morrison and Yue also claim that their activity
after the reduction to practice "neither lacked diligence nor
was an abandonment, suppression or concealment of the
Paper No. 93, at 1.55
Morr.Open.Br. 56.56
- 34 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007