Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
finding was made when the question of when Andrew H. Cragg
assigned his rights was not an issue and also prior to party
Cragg’s representation to the Board in its request for
reconsideration of the Board’s granting of Fogarty’s
preliminary motion 12 that Andrew H. Cragg did not assign his
rights to Mintec until several months after the European
applications were filed. It lacks adequate basis in the
record.5
Cragg still further argues that because it has been
accorded benefit to the September 27, 1994 filing date of
application 08/312,881 (granting of Cragg’s preliminary motion
7) and because that application claims foreign priority to
EP94400284.9 and EP94401306.9, which claim was granted by an
examiner and not challenged in this interference, it still
should have benefit of the filing dates of EP94400284.9 and
EP94401306.9. The argument is without merit.
As the Board’s decision on reconsideration (Paper No,
138) has stated on page 6:
5Our authority and discretion to vacate the previous
finding does not depend on whether Fogarty has asked the Board
to reconsider the finding or when the request by Fogarty was
made. We dismiss Cragg’s argument that Fogarty was late in
asking the Board to reconsider the previous finding.
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007