Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Alternatively, even assuming that Cragg’s identification
of Michael D. Dake as the only inventor for the subject matter
of the count is a mistake and that Cragg has been allowed to
amend its preliminary statement to identify both Andrew H.
Cragg and Michael D. Dake as co-inventors of the subject
matter of the count, that still does not help party Cragg in
any meaningful way. Like Michael D. Dake, Andrew H. Cragg
also did not assign his rights to MinTec, Inc. until after
European application EP94400284.9 was filed on February 9,
1994, and European application EP94401306.9 was filed on June
10, 1994.
Cragg’s Exhibit CE1021 is an assignment from Andrew
Cragg, Claude Mialhe, George Goicoechea, and John Hudson to
MINTEC, INC. It was executed by Andrew H. Cragg on August 22,
1994. Accordingly, MINTEC SARL was not an assign of either
Michael D. Dake nor Andrew H. Cragg when it filed European
applications EP94400284.9 and EP94401306.9. In that
connection, we vacate the Board’s previous finding in
paragraph no. 7 of Paper No. 130 which stated: “The European
applications EP94400284.9 and EP94401306.9 were filed by the
assignee MINTEC SARL on behalf of inventors Andrew H. Cragg,
George Goicoechea, John Hudson, and Claude Mialhe.” That
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007