Interference No. 102,712
apparently did not include any specific reference whatsoever
to the particular materials or species embodied in the claims
at issue. Also, in Jones, the secondary art under
consideration was in a field that was unrelated to the
herbicide field of the primary reference.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Augustine that
Suzuki’s motion to designate all of its involved claims as not
corresponding to the count was properly denied. Since Suzuki
is a junior party and has not presented a case for priority,
judgment against Suzuki is in order.
IV. Augustine’s Compliance with the “Best Mode” Requirement
Based upon the record before us, we find that Suzuki has
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
Augustine’s involved application does not satisfy the “best
mode” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, Suzuki’s
corresponding motion for judgment is denied. Suzuki, as the
moving party, bears the burden of persuasion on this issue.
See Behr v. Talbott, supra, and Weil v. Fritz, 601 F.2d 551,
555, 202 USPQ 447, 450 (CCPA 1979).
Initially, we note that Suzuki’s position regarding
Augustine’s alleged lack of compliance with the best mode
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007