Interference No. 103,203
Id., pp. 43-45. According to Nemerson et al., at best, Edgington et al. can only rely on their
filing dates for a constructive reduction to practice of subject matter defined by the count.
Id., pp, 41-49.
In view of our disposition of this case, infra, these arguments are now moot.
Accordingly, they have not been addressed.
The Lawn et al. position with respect to Edgington et al.
Lawn et al. state that Edgington et al. have not proven an actual reduction to
practice prior to the effective filing date of the Lawn et al. application; i.e., prior to February
12, 1987, but they provide no reasons or argument in support thereof. Lawn Brief, p. 100,
the penultimate sentence.
Findings of facts related to Lawn et al.’s case for priority
(1) Lawn et al. filed a patent application (Application No. 07/013,743)
describing a species within the scope of Count 2 on February 12, 1987. Lawn Brief, pp. 6-
7, Facts 2 and 6; p. 23; pp. 69-71.
(2) Lawn et al. rely on the benefit of Application 07/013,743 to establish a
constructive reduction to practice of a species within the scope of Count 2. Lawn Brief, pp.
69-71.
(3) Lawn et al.’s Preliminary Motion 2 for benefit of Application 07/013,743 was
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007