Interference No. 103,611
Whether Stevens has proven that its invention
was communicated to Miller prior to Miller’s
filing date and that Miller derived the
invention from Stevens;
Whether Miller’s aforementioned U.S. Patent
5,231,709 provides 35 U.S.C. § 112 support
for the invention defined by the count.
In its brief at pages 2 and 3, Miller asserts that the
following, among other things, are issues before the Board:
Whether the count is supported by the Miller U.S.
Patent 5,231,709 and whether Miller should be
accorded the filing date of said patent;
Whether Stevens derived the invention from Miller;
Whether the count is unpatentable to Stevens over the
Miller patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103;
Whether Stevens’ interfering application is
invalid to Stevens due to the fact that Stevens
failed to inform the Patent and Trademark Office
examiner that the embodiments shown in Figs. 5-18 of
Miller’s application are prior art;
Whether claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27,
30-32 and 34 of Miller were incorrectly designated as
corresponding to the count.
Burden of Proof
Whereas the applications of the parties are co-pending, the
burden of proof as to date of invention on the junior party
Stevens is preponderance of the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 1.657(b).
Positions of the Parties Concerning Priority
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007