NEDELK V. STIMSON et al. - Page 35



            Interference No. 102,755                                                                   


            chief period, which was set to end on March 1, 1994.  As a                                 
            result of a number of granted extensions of time to                                        
            accommodate the appointment of new counsel for Stimson and to                              
            allow for settlement negotiations, the closing date for                                    
            DeVlieg's deposition testimony period for priority and XB-70                               
            testimony was extended to July 7, 1994, in the '756                                        
            interference and the due dates for Nedelk and Stimson were                                 
            made to coincide in both interferences.        26                                          
                        The July 7, 1994, closing date for DeVlieg's                                   
            testimony-in-chief passed without DeVlieg taking any priority                              
            testimony or XB-70 testimony.  Two weeks later, on the July                                
            21, 1994, closing date for Nedelk and Beck et al. to file                                  
            their priority affidavit testimony in both interferences, they                             
            filed their priority testimony and the two motions which are                               
            before us at this final hearing: (a) the on-sale motion27                                  
            alleging that Dunlop's activities at the Atlanta meeting                                   
            described in the Wells affidavit that accompanied Stimson's                                
            corrected preliminary statement amounted to an offer to sell                               
            the invention to Delta; and (b) the XB-70 motion,  which   28                              



              Paper Nos. 31 and 32.26                                                                                   
              Paper No. 39.27                                                                                   
              Paper No. 40.28                                                                                   
                                               - 33 -                                                  



Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007