Interference No. 102,712
its utility. See Gordon v. Hubbard, 347 F.2d 1001, 1006-07,
146 USPQ 303, 307-08 (CCPA 1965)
For the foregoing reasons, judgment against Mehrotra is
in order.
II. Augustine’s Case for Priority
There is no need to consider Augustine’s case with
respect to the issue of prior inventorship as Augustine is the
senior party in this interference with an effective filing
date of May 5, 1986, and no junior party has established an
earlier date of invention. However, for the sake of
completeness, we have reviewed Augustine’s case for priority.
Having done so, we find that Augustine has established
respective dates of conception and reduction to practice
earlier than any of those alleged by Mehrotra.
Augustine’s position can be summarized as follows: Rolf
Kraemer, a Greenleaf product manager, worked closely with
Augustine during the time in question (AR-195). Kraemer and
others corroborate disclosure by Augustine of the invention
defined by the count at an R&D meeting held in the middle of
1984, on or about June 2, 1984 (AR 196-197, 213; AX-13). The
idea was to apply a thin adherent Al O coating to whisker-
2 3
reinforced ceramic cutting tools for the purpose of providing
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007