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 12Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007