Interference No. 103,611
With respect to this issue, Miller’s position is that the
count is broad, not ambiguous.
We are not persuaded by the argument of the junior party
presented in its briefs. Stevens has not made clear what
language the parties interpret differently. The junior party
relies on an unsupported allegation that the parties take
different views on the meaning of count language.
Even if the allegation that the parties have different
interpretations of certain count language were supported by a
showing of Stevens, the showing would not be persuasive. A bare
showing that the parties disagree as to the meaning of certain
language in a count does not establish ambiguity of the count.
Krokel v. Shah, 558 F.2d 29, 32, 194 USPQ 544, 547 (CCPA 1977).
Otherwise, Stevens has not specifically analyzed one or more
portions of the count to show wherein ambiguity lies.
Miller’s Case Re Conception
Miller’s evidence relating to its conception is to the
following effect.
On or about April 20, 1988, Miller and an acquaintance,
Raymond Holobaugh, had dinner at a restaurant in North Carolina
on the occasion of a furniture market. During this dinner,
Miller disclosed to Holobaugh a deck for a sofa bed to be
incorporated in the frame of the sofa bed below the mattress so
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007