Interference No. 103,891
Flanders’ Motion for Inventorship Change under 37 CFR § 1.634
Moorman does not oppose Flanders' request for a change
of inventorship in his brief. Flanders has provided evidence the
misjoinder was without deceptive intent. Accordingly, the motion
under 37 CFR § 1.634 is GRANTED. The interference will be
redeclared with the junior party inventors corrected as per
Flanders’ motion.
Conclusion
We have first considered the Concept S prior art and
found it to be non-enabling. Accordingly, it does not render any
of either party's claims unpatentable.
With respect to priority, we have accorded Flanders,
the junior party, a date of reduction to practice as of
December 22, 1988. This antedates the senior party’s filing
date. When we considered the senior party’s priority case, we
were unable to credit the senior party with a reduction to
practice earlier than that filing date of September 3, 1992.
Flanders has won the priority contest. Therefore, we will enter
judgment hereinbelow in favor of Flanders, the junior party.
27
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007