Interference No. 103,029
therefore, similar to the previously cited cases, the evidence
of derivation stands unrebutted by any evidence from Kipouras
and Federl.
As noted above, while we have determined that
Barnhouse and Yu conceived of the invention and communicated
that conception to Borg-Warner prior to May 31. 1984,
Barnhouse is restricted by preliminary statement to a
date prior to
December 17, 1984. Accordingly, we find that the invention
was derived from party Barnhouse on December 16, 1984. As we
have noted above, once derivation has been shown, it is
immaterial who reduced to practice first. Therefore, now
senior party Kipouras’ benefit date of December 21, 1984 is
unavailing. Judgment on the ground of originality of
invention will be entered in favor of Barnhouse hereinbelow.
Judgment
Judgment in Interference No. 103,029 is entered
against the now senior party, George P. Kipouras and Alan R.
24(...continued)
40
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007