Interference No. 103,414
of an invention which was conceived by another person"). 8 As a
result, priority with respect to the count is being awarded to
Ellis based on his actual reduction to practice of the partially
tapered rivet.
H. Judgment
Judgment on the issue of priority as to Count 1, the
sole count, is hereby entered in favor of Ellis's claims that
correspond to the count (i.e., claims 1 and 6), which means Ellis
is entitled to a patent including those claims. Judgment on the
issue of priority therefore is hereby entered against Henry's
claims that correspond to the count (i.e., claims 1-3 and 5),
which means Henry is not entitled to a patent including those
claims.
__________________________ )
Ian A. Calvert )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
) BOARD OF
__________________________ ) PATENT APPEALS
John C. Martin ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge) INTERFERENCES
)
)
8 Nor does the testimony identify anyone else as the inventor
of the particular pre-existing rivet at issue. While O'Rourke
testified that "Unistrut is in the business of manufacturing metal
framing and has been a long time customer of Southco since at least
the 1960's[,] purchasing various types of expanding rivets designed
by Southco for use with Unistrut metal framing" (ER 1, ¶ 3), the
cited testimony does not support the assertion in ¶ 6 of Ellis's
Statement of Facts that "the [pre-existing] rivet sample which had
been supplied to Unistrut was designed by Southco."
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007