Interference No. 102,712
We shall now discuss each issue seriatim to highlight the
reasoning upon which our conclusions are based.
I. Mehrotra’s Case for Priority
Mehrotra, being a junior party, has the burden of proving
prior inventorship by a preponderance of the evidence. Peeler
v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647, 651-52, 190 USPQ 117, 120-21 (CCPA
1976).
Mehrotra alleges conception and actual reduction to
practice of the invention defined by the count prior to
Augustine’s filing date. Mehrotra also alleges that it was
first to conceive and exercised reasonable diligence in
actually or constructively reducing the invention to practice.
In attempting to prove these allegations, Mehrotra relies upon
an evidentiary record solely consisting of the testimony of
co-inventor Mehrotra together with documentary exhibits. Only
Mehrotra testified, and no one else testified as to any
activities or dates referred to in the documentary exhibits.
Under these circumstances, we totally agree with Augustine
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007