Interference No. 104,190
As noted above, we have determined that the
invention developed and tested by Rydell at Everest in
December 1991 was not within the scope of the count and was
not reduced to practice due to failed testing. If the
invention were to have been reduced to practice and within the
scope of the count it was abandoned, suppressed or concealed.
The Parins motion under 37 CFR § 1.634 has been denied.
Consequently, the junior party
has not antedated the senior party’s effective filing date.
It is unnecessary for us to consider any priority evidence on
the part of the senior party. We will enter judgment,
hereinbelow, in favor of senior party Slater.
Judgment
Judgment in Interference No. 104,190 is entered in
favor of Charles R. Slater, the senior party. Charles R.
Slater
is entitled to a patent containing claims 40-54, which claims
correspond to the count in interference. Judgment is entered
against David J. Parins and Richard K. Poppe, the junior
35
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007