Interference No. 102,408
was actually reduced to practice prior to September 3, 1984.
Therefore, junior party Child's case for priority must fail.
Junior party Child takes issue with the fact that senior
party Kolar did not cross-examine junior party's declarants or
rebut certain declaration testimony. However, it is of no
moment that senior party failed to cross-examine junior party
Child's declarants. The initial burden is on junior party to
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, an actual
reduction to practice of a compound within the scope of the
count prior to the critical date. Holmwood, 948 F.2d at 1238,
20 USPQ2d at 1714; Bosies, 27 F.3d at 541-42, 30 USPQ2d at
1864. For the reasons set forth above, Child has failed to
satisfy that burden.
Likewise, it is of no moment that the "Statement of
Facts" section of senior party Kolar's brief may contain
arguments. See CRB1. Child, as the junior party in this
interference, bears the initial burden of establishing
priority by a preponderance of the evidence. Holmwood, 948
F.2d at 1238, 20 USPQ2d at 1714; Bosies, 27 F.3d at 541-42, 30
USPQ2d at 1864. Manifestly, if the junior party has not met
31
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007