Interference No. 104,190
briefs understandably fail to point to any collaboration or
connection between the alleged joint inventors. Instead the
junior party relies only on acts by Rydell, and then, much
later after Rydell had left Everest's employ, independent acts
by Parins and Poppe. As such, the junior party has not shown
any collaboration by a preponderance of the evidence.15, 16
The junior party has failed under 37 CFR § 1.637(a)
to establish that it is, in fact, entitled to the relief
requested in the motion to correct inventorship. The motion
is DENIED.
Senior Party Priority
15The junior party argument appears to be based partly on
the fact that Parins was an addressee on summary memos written
by O’Brien in 1991. This argument smacks of an argument
grounded on subliminal or subconscious copying as seen in
copyright cases.
16The junior party reply brief states that Parins
attended meetings at which the hook scissors were discussed
relying on PX-13 and 14. The testimony is clear that Parins
was merely an addressee of the memos, and his attendance
cannot be assumed. O’Brien: “His name is on the memo, but that
doesn’t necessarily mean that he was there.” PR361. The
reference to Parins cutting beefsteak with PX-10 at Everest
before December 19, 1991 is speculative. PR177.
34
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007