Weaver's case on priority
29. Weaver relies on its 31 January 1994 benefit date.
30. In its brief, Weaver alleges that Rowland abandoned,
suppressed or concealed its October 1991 reduction to practice.
31. Weaver timely filed a notice of intent to argue
abandonment, suppression, or concealment by Rowland (Paper 76).
C. Discussion
Rowland's Case on Priorit
Rowland, as the junior party in this interference, has the
burden of establishing priority with respect to Weaver by a
preponderance of the evidence. 37 CFR § 1.657(b).
Priority of invention belongs to the first party to reduce
the invention to practice unless the other party can establish
that it was the first to conceive the invention and that it
exercised reasonable-diligence in later reducing the invention to
practice. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097, 53 USPQ2d 1696,
1698 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, Rowland alleges a conception date
of 13 May 1991 and an actual reduction to practice date of 11
October 1991.
Alternatively, Rowland argues that it reduced the invention
to practice on 8 February 1994 and that it was diligent from a
time just prior to Weaver's 31 January 1994 benefit date until
its 8 February 1994 reduction to practice.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007