Interference No. 104,190
the estoppel argument, an explanation of which is only found
in the reply brief.
Decision on Motion Under 37 CFR § 1.634
Parins' renewed motion to add Rydell as an
additional inventor in the involved Parins patent has been
deferred to this final decision. Slater has opposed on two
grounds, viz., the invention of Rydell in December 1991 is not
within the scope of the count, and there was no collaboration,
whatsoever, between Parins and Poppe on the one hand and
Rydell on the other.
As has already been determined with respect to
conception and reduction to practice, it was our conclusion
that the subject matter invented by Rydell in December 1991
was not within the scope of the count in interference. This
determination alone is enough for us to deny the motion.
We, herein, further determine that Slater’s second
opposition to the motion also has merit. Parins argues in the
junior party’s main brief that different claims can have
different inventive entities. We agree. However, in the
32
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007