11-20-1991. These SNOWBOARD KEY CHAINS were made in the
Orient.
I also prepared my CASE IN CHIEF stating when I made
and applied for patents on my SNOWBOARD KEY CHAINS that
I make in the U.S.A.
My argument is simple. HOW COULD I BE SELLING
SNOWBOARD KEY CHAINS IN 1991 IF THE SNOWBOARD KEY CHAIN
WAS NOT INVENTED UNTIL MARCH OR APRIL 1996 BY Kent
Bergfalk.
Therefore Kent Bergfalk simply made a snowboard key
chain in 1996 but HE IS NOT THE ORIGINAL INVENTOR OF
THE SNOWBOARD KEY CHAIN since I HAVE BEEN SELLING
SNOWBOARD KEY CHAINS SINCE THE YEAR 1991.
Therefore Kent Bergfalk cannot claim interference on a
snowboard key chain or anything for that matter.
What I mean is Kent could make an automobile TIRE
tomorrow but that DOES NOT mean he invented The wheel.
So he has no valid claim against my design patent of my
unique interpretation of a snowboard key chain.
If the Patent Office would like to give Kent Bergfalk a
design patent for his unique design of a snowboard Key
chain that's fine with me.
But it is my opinion that neither Kent Bergfalk nor the
Patent Office has a right to claim interference
Because I have proven that I have been selling
SNOWBOARD KEY CHAINS 5 YEARS BEFORE KENT BERGFALK made
NOT INVENTED his snowboard key chains.
II. Discussion
A rebuttable presumption exists that the inventors made
their invention in the chronological order of their effective
filing dates. The burden of proof is on the party that contends
otherwise. 37 CFR § 1.657. Bergfalk filed its '498 application
before Winter filed its '799 benefit application (FF1 6).
Accordingly, Bergfalk is presumed to have invented the snowboard
key chain of the count before Winter. Winter has the burden of
proving otherwise.
1 Finding of fact.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007