Interference No. 102,408
its initial burden of proof, the senior party will prevail in
an interference regardless of whether or not it has even filed
an opposition brief. Fitch v. Cooper, 139 USPQ 382, 382 (Bd.
Pat. Int. 1962) (notwithstanding uncontested nature of the
case, the senior party is still presumed to be the first
inventor, and the burden of proof rests upon the junior party
to overcome this presumption). Accordingly, senior party's
brief will not be returned pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.618 (1993).
Issues (2) and (8)
With respect to senior party Kolar's allegations
concerning abandonment, suppression and concealment, for the
reasons set forth above, we have not found an actual reduction
to practice of a compound within the scope of the count prior
to September 3, 1984. "[W]ithout an actual reduction to
practice there is no invention in existence which can be
abandoned, suppressed, or concealed." Peeler v. Miller, 535
F.2d 647, 651, 190 USPQ 117, 120. Therefore, issues (2) and
(8) are moot.
Motion to strike rebuttal testimony of Kolar;
Issues (3)-(5), (9) and (10)
Since it was not necessary to address the rebuttal
testimony of Dr. Cenek Kolar, the motion to strike that
32
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007