Interference No. 103,467                                                    

          party's effective filing date and thus win the priority contest.            
                    The junior party filed a main brief at final hearing              
          and has waived oral hearing.  Accordingly, we move to a                     
          consideration of the junior party’s priority evidence.                      
                          The Junior Party’s Priority Case                            
                    As the junior party in an interference between                    
          co-pending applications, junior party Whisenant bears the                   
          burden of proving priority by a preponderance of the evidence.              
          See Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1326, 47 USPQ2d 1896,                
          1900  (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058,               
          1061,   32 USPQ2d 1115, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).                             
                    For his evidence of priority, Whisenant is relying                
          on a reduction to practice before the senior party’s effective              
          filing date.  The evidence consists of declarations and an                  
          exhibit, the exhibit being a pair of eyeglasses said to be                  
          within the scope of the count.  The following represents our                
          findings with respect to this evidence.                                     
                    In March 1992, the junior party inventor was                      
          stationed in the middle east on duty with the United States                 
          Air Force.  WR2; WR6; WR8; WR12.  Prior to March 16, 1992, the              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007