Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
regard to any particular invention at issue or involved in an
interference, 35 U.S.C. § 119 still includes the language
concerning filing in a foreign country by
assigns or legal representatives of the one who files for that
invention in the United States.
We have reviewed Schmitt v. Babcock, 377 F.2d 994, 153
USPQ 719 (CCPA 1967), a case mentioned by Cragg during oral
argument at final hearing as somehow being in support of its
position, but it does not help Cragg’s position. The Schmitt
case, from a pre-1984 era, relates to an inconsistency or
disagreement in inventorship between the U.S. application and
the foreign application and a resolution of that disagreement
prior to accordance of benefit. Here, inconsistency or
disagreement in inventorship is not the issue. Nothing in
Schmitt purports to not recognize the filing by assigns
requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 119. Even if it does, that would be contrary to the Vogel
case which is later in time and thus takes precedent over
Schmitt.
It is not in dispute that the assignment from Michael D.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007