Interference No. 104,241
Cupps et al.'s claims in their involved application.
Moreover, because Jeon et al. is the party bearing the
burden of persuasion it was not necessary for Cupps et al. to
prove that they are, in fact, entitled to the benefit of their
earlier filed application. Nevertheless, we agree with Cupps
et al., for reasons expressed in their opposition to the Jeon
et al. motion that because their benefit application, of which
their involved application is a continuation-in-part,
describes at least one embodiment within the count in a manner
which satisfies
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, that Cupps et al. were
properly accorded benefit of their earlier filed application
in the declaration of this interference.
Finally, we have not overlooked Jeon et al.'s collateral
attack on the quality of the Cupps et al. disclosure vis-à-vis
Jeon et al.'s burden of proof in presenting their showing
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b) but find that Jeon et al.'s attack,
like Jeon et al.'s arguments in favor of granting their
motion, is founded on a misunderstanding of the relevant law.
Simply stated, Jeon et al. have confused the requirements for
prima facie proving an actual reduction to practice (Jeon et
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007