Interference No. 104,241
deferred to the examiner's implicit finding on which Jeon et
al. relied.
Jeon et al.'s argument that equity between the parties
mandates that we consider their supplemental showing simply
misunderstands the procedure under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b) and is
also unsupported by any legal precedent which supports Jeon et
al.'s position. Cupps et al. is simply not under any burden
of persuasion at this point in this proceeding. Jeon et al.
are under the burden of showing that they are entitled to go
forward in this proceeding based on their originally filed
showing under 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b) or their originally filed
showing in further view of their supplemental evidence.
Further, the requirements for proving an actual reduction to
practice are separate and distinct from the requirements for
satisfying 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 with respect to the
utility requirements for an application for a patent. Suffice
it to say that the sufficiency of Cupps et al.'s disclosed
utility for their compounds in the disclosure of their
involved patent is simply not relevant to Jeon et al.'s
showing under the rule or Jeon et al.'s burden of persuasion.
With respect to Jeon et al.'s second and third reasons
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007