Interference No. 102,622
the party Oates will refrain from
relying on any actual reduction to
practice in presenting its case for
priority in this interference as
presently declared and constituted
In Paper Number 52, the APJ, in his order denying additional
discovery, specifically held in light of Oates' above-noted
representation that:
Oates may not prove priority in this
interference by showing an actual
reduction to practice of the subject
matter of the count before Rivetti et
al.'s effective filing date.
Accordingly, Oates is limited to proving priority by proving
by a preponderance of the evidence that she conceived her
invention before the filing date of Rivetti et al.'s Italian
benefit application coupled with reasonable diligence from a
date just prior to Rivetti et al.'s filing date up to a
reduction to practice by Oates.
In her preliminary statement (Paper Number 8), Oates
alleges: the invention defined by Count 1 was first conceived
by her July 30, 1985; she conceived of the invention of Count
1 in this interference in the United States (see paragraph (4)
of Paper Number 9); the date active exercise of reasonable
diligence toward reducing the invention to practice began was
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007