Interference No. 102,755
after all of the critical dates in this interference" (Motion
at 12). Actually, this argument is applicable to only
paragraph 11, the sole paragraph which discusses installation
of the invention on the Fokker 100. While Stimson concedes
this installation occurred after the critical period for
showing diligence (Opposition at 11), we will not suppress12
this testimony, as it may shed light on whether the activities
during critical period were directed toward an actual
reduction to practice. The other paragraphs, which concern
Zarembka's experience and tests of carbon braking materials
conducted prior to February 21, 1989, are relevant to Nedelk's
priority case and will not be suppressed.
(e) Moseley affidavit, NR 19-20, ¶¶ 5-8, and NE 46-
52. Moseley's testimony about the July 1988 Airbus
proposal (¶ 5) and his subsequent thermal analysis of Nedelk's
brake control system for use in the Fokker 100 (¶ 6), though
occurring after the critical period for diligence, may shed
light on activities during that period and therefore will not
be suppressed. The same is true of Moseley's discussion (¶¶ 7
The critical period runs from just before Stimson's12
February 16, 1988, benefit date up to Nedelk's February 21, 1989,
filing date.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007