Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Fogarty’s preliminary motion 12, Cragg filed a motion under 37
CFR § 1.628 to amend or correct its preliminary statement, to
name not just Michael D. Dake as the only inventor of the
subject matter of the count, but Andrew H. Cragg and Michael
D. Dake as co-inventors. That was a full opportunity for
party Cragg to present all the evidence it wanted to present
on the issue, to demonstrate that it had made an error in only
naming Michael D. Dake as the inventor of the subject matter
of the count. That motion was denied on April 7, 2000, in
Paper No. 130. Party Cragg requested reconsideration of that
decision. The original decision was adhered to in a
reconsideration decision on June 27, 2000, in Paper No. 146.
Party Cragg has not sought review of that decision at final
hearing.
Party Cragg further argues that the outcome here is
unfair because as the original senior party it need not have
filed a preliminary statement, and if it did not file a
preliminary statement, then none of this would have ensued.
The argument is rejected. If Cragg had not filed a
preliminary statement, it would not have revealed information
which ultimately led to its being deprived of benefit to the
earlier filing dates of foreign applications. But this result
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007