Interference No. 103,891
reduction to practice on October 7 is described in two sentences.
Similarly, it does not establish a reduction to practice of all
elements of the interference count. These are all Moorman’s
alleged reductions to practice from his brief. Finally, the
failure of Flanders to cross-examine does not relieve Moorman of
his burden of proving priority. Ganguly v. Sunagawa, 5 USPQ2d
1970, 1973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987).
Moorman’s alleged reduction to practice of April 13,
1988 is the only Moorman alleged reduction to practice described
in any detail. Flanders has correctly pointed out that Moorman
does not affirmatively state or prove that the Strep A antigen,
the analyte of interest, in the positive control zone, is in
solubilizible form as required by the interference count. All
others of Moorman’s alleged reductions to practice are simply not
discussed with any particularity whatsoever. Given the situation
outlined above, we are unable to credit Moorman with a reduction
to practice at any time prior to his constructive reduction to
practice at his filing date of September 3, 1992.
19(...continued)
dates are discussed in greater detail in the Flanders reply brief
than in Moorman's brief. Flanders’ reply also discusses at 10-14
various allegations in Moorman’s statement of facts that Moorman
himself does not rely on for reduction to practice in the body of
his brief.
26
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007