Interference No. 103,611
The junior party Stevens does not contend that it actually
reduced to practice the invention of the count prior to its
filing date. In order to prevail herein as the prior inventor,
Stevens submits that it conceived the invention of the count as
early as January 8, 1993 and was reasonably diligent from this
date to its constructive reduction to practice on August 3, 1993.
As between the parties, Miller asserts the earlier date of
conception, as early as April 20, 1988. Miller will be entitled
to prevail herein as first to conceive and first to reduce to
practice (its May 25, 1993 filing date is a constructive
reduction to practice) if it has established a date of conception
prior to the January 8, 1993 date of conception alleged by
Stevens.
Count Ambiguity
The count is the measure of the invention. Such being the
case, we will address the position of Stevens that the count is
ambiguous before proceeding to decide the issue of prior
conception by Miller.
The count is identical to claim 1 in the Stevens
application. Based upon alleged different interpretations of the
count presented by Miller and Stevens, the junior party contends
that the count is ambiguous and should be interpreted in light of
Stevens’ specification from which it originated.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007