Interference No. 102,712
OPINION
After a thorough evaluation of the entire evidentiary
record in this proceeding in light of the opposing positions
taken by the parties in their briefs, we agree with senior
party Augustine, essentially for the reasons presented in its
brief and reply brief, that:
(a) Mehrotra’s case for priority is fatally deficient for
lack of adequate corroboration;
(b) Augustine has established respective dates of
conception and reduction to practice earlier than any of those
alleged by Mehrotra;
(c) Suzuki has failed to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that its involved claims should be designated as
not corresponding to the count; and
(d) 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, judgment shall be entered against both
Mehrotra and Suzuki.4
4We note that Suzuki is a junior party and has not put on
a case for priority. Indeed, Suzuki did not allege any date
in its preliminary statement prior to Augustine’s filing date.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007