Interference No. 102,755
Nedelk does not allege an actual reduction to
practice prior to his filing date. Instead, Nedelk alleges5
conception prior to Stimson's British benefit date coupled
with diligence from just before that date up to Nedelk's
February 21, 1989, filing date. Because Stimson's effective
filing date is prior to the issue date of the Beck patent,
Beck's burden of proof on the priority issue is a
preponderance of the evidence. 37 CFR § 1.657(b).
1. Stimson's motion to suppress most
of Nedelk's priority evidence
Stimson seeks to suppress, as lacking relevance
under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402, most of the affidavit
evidence and exhibits offered by Nedelk to prove conception
and diligence; Stimson also requests that the references to
this evidence in Nedelk's opening brief be given no
consideration. For the following reasons, the motion is6
denied in all respects.
(a) Nedelk affidavit, NR 2-3, ¶¶ 8-11, and NE 1-5.
Paragraph 8 is alleged to be irrelevant because it "offers a
Consequently, Stimson has withdrawn (at SMB 31) his5
contention that Nedelk suppressed or concealed the invention, as
argued in Stimson's § 1.632 notice of intent to argue abandonment,
suppression, or concealment (paper No. 75).
Paper No. 88, at 10-15.6
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007