Interference 103,685
insufficiently corroborates Riggins’ case for priority of the
invention of Count 2. Moreover, we find little, if any, basis
for such an argument. We find that Riggins has submitted ample
evidence to corroborate its case. Accordingly, priority of the
invention defined by Count 2 of this interference is awarded
against party Holsten.
C. Riggins’ motion to change inventorship
Riggins moved under 37 CFR § 1.634 to correct the
inventorship of Riggins involved application (Riggins et al.’s
Motion For Correction of Inventorship Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.634
(Paper No. 94)). Riggins’ papers in support of the motion
reasonably appear to satisfy all the requirements of 37 CFR
§ 1.48(a). Moreover, Riggins notified Holsten that the motion
stands unopposed (Paper No. 112, p. 2):
In that no written opposition was filed by Holsten et al.
by the February 4, 1998, deadline established in Paper
No. 91, Riggins et al. respectfully assert that the
Motion is unopposed and, therefore, should be granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Riggins’ Motion for Correction of Inventorship
under 37 CFR § 1.634 is granted.
D. Miscellaneous papers
Riggins et al.’s Objection Under Rule 1.672(c) to the
Admissibility of Holsten et al.’s Exhibits 1-5 (Paper No. 109) is
-65-
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007