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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007