Interference 102,728
Thus, we hold that Singh has failed to establish diligence from (i) a date prior to
Brake’s critical date, and (ii) to Singh’s subsequent reduction to practice.
In view of our holding, we need not consider Singh’s remaining evidence of
diligence and reduction to practice.
X. JUDGMENT
In view of the foregoing, judgment as to the subject matter of the count is hereby
awarded to BRAKE, the senior party.
Accordingly, on the present record, SINGH is not entitled to a patent containing
his claims 8 and 19 through 21, corresponding to the count.
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
FRED MCKELVEY ) APPEALS AND
Senior Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
SALLY GARDNER-LANE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
89
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007