Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Dake to Mintec, Inc. occurred subsequent to the filing of the
two European applications. In its request for reconsideration
(Paper No. 137) of the granting of Fogarty’s preliminary
motion 12, on pages 4-5, Cragg stated:
Mintec, the applicant in the EP applications in
question, was the assignee of both Dr. Cragg and Dr.
Dake, albeit the assignment by Dr. Cragg came
several months after those applications had been
filed and the assignment by Dr. Dake came more than
a year after they had been filed.
Note Cragg’s exhibit CE-1025, an assignment document from Mr.
Michael D. Dake to MinTec, Inc., which was executed on May 6,
1996, more than two years after the filing of EP94400284.9,
and nearly two years after the filing of EP94401306.9.
Cragg’s brief at final hearing does not appear to argue
that under 35 U.S.C. § 119, a subsequent assignment puts an
assignee in the same position as if it were a “legal
representative” or “assign” of the inventor at a previous time
when a foreign application for the same invention was filed by
that assignee.
In any event, that argument, if made, would be rejected
because it ignores plain statutory language to the contrary.
Cragg has not set forth evidence of legislative history which
clearly indicates that the statute does not mean what it
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007