Interference 102,760
§1.635 and §1.656(h)(Paper No. 101), (2) a Motion To Suppress
Rapoport Exhibits 10 and 11 Under 37 CFR §1.635 and
§1.656(h)(Paper
No. 101), (3) a Motion To Suppress Documentary Evidence Under
37 CFR §1.635 and §1.656(h)(Paper No. 101), and (4) a Motion
To Suppress Cross-Examination Testimony Under 37 CFR §1.635
and §1.656(h)(Paper No. 101).
April 12, 1996 -- Rapoport’s Motion Under 37 CFR
§1.633(a) (Paper No. 12) for a judgment holding Claims 1-13 of
Dement et al. Application 07/695,325 unpatentable as derived
from Rapoport or unpatentable over Rapoport’s presentations in
the U.S., was denied by the Board (Paper No. 112). Senior
party Dement et al. was awarded priority of the invention of
Count 1 (Paper No. 112, pp. 18-19, bridging para.). According
to the Board, Rapoport had not established that Dement et al.
had derived the invention of Count 1 from Rapoport, because
Dement et al. sustained their burden to establish a date of
conception of the invention of Count 1 earlier than the date
of conception established by Rapoport (Paper No 112, p. 9,
last para.). The Board also determined (Paper No. 112, pp.
11-12, bridging para., and p. 12, first full para; footnotes
omitted):
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007