Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
inventor. A contrary interpretation would cause
entitlement to benefit to be negotiable as a
commodity between unrelated entities. Note that if
party Martin or party Fogarty now assigned its
involved patent or application to MINTEC, that does
not and should not mean party Martin or party
Fogarty’s involved case should suddenly be entitled
to the benefit of the earlier filing dates of party
Cragg’s European applications, on the basis that the
European applications were previously filed by
MINTEC who is now the assignee of party Martin or
party Fogarty’s involved patent or application.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007