Interference No. 103,878
motion is granted. With respect to all other requests for
suppression of evidence, the motion is denied. The junior
party’s motion to suppress evidence is GRANTED-IN-PART.
Originality
“Determining ‘inventorship’ is nothing more than
determining who conceived the subject matter at issue, whether
that subject matter is recited in a claim in an application or
in a count in an interference. Conception, and consequently
inventorship, are questions of law.” Sewall v. Walters, 21
F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(quoting
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc, 802 F.2d 1367,
1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S.
947 (1987)).
This case, therefore, comes to us in the context of an
originality contest as opposed to a priority contest. Sewell,
21 F.3d at 415, 30 USPQ2d at 1358 (quoting Applegate v.
Scherer, 332 F.2d 571, 573 n.1, 141 USPQ 796, 798 n.1 (CCPA
1964)("[I]n an originality case the issue is not who is the
first or prior inventor, but who made the invention.")). The
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007