Interference No. 103,836
preliminary statement. The circumstance described by Clemens, that he inadvertently had not
noted the difference in file numbers in the documents which he reviewed indicates on its face
that there was a lack of due care in the preparation of the original preliminary statement in that
the existence of two distinct files was not recognized even though the fact was evident. The
conclusion that Clemens inadvertently failed to note the difference in file numbers does not
establish that the party Beam was not negligent in preparing the original preliminary statement.
At page 3 of Beam’s reply to Chase’s opposition to the motion, Beam asserts that Chase’s
theory that Beam was spurred to action to file a corrected preliminary motion by receipt of the
preliminary statement of Chase is flawed because in related litigation the assignee of the junior
party received a copy of Chase’s first drawing and first written description as early as February
1998. This is not persuasive argument because the invention in the litigation is presumably
different from that involved here, and there is no evidence in this proceeding that the alleged first
description and first drawing in the litigation are the same as the first description and first
drawing of the corrected preliminary statement.
In view of our opinion, above, the party Beam is limited to the dates alleged in its
original preliminary statement.
Chase’s Case for Priority
If Chase has established prior conception as alleged, Chase will be entitled to prevail on
the issue of priority of invention as the first to conceive and the first to reduce to practice. Beam
does not allege reduction to practice prior to the June 25, 1992 filing date of Application No.
07/904,180 accorded to Chase.
It is considered that the party Chase has not established conception in February or March
1992 as alleged. The wheel assembly of the drawing dated February 4, 1992, identified as
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007