Interference No. 104,067
junior party of its initial burden of establishing priority by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Fitch v. Cooper, 139 USPQ
382, 382 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1962) (notwithstanding uncontested nature
of the case, the senior party is still presumed to he the first
inventor, and the burden of proof rests upon the junior party to
overcome this presumption). Rather, Bishop is restricted to the
July 20, 1993, filing date of U.S. Patent No. 5,390,861, involved
in this interference.
Ii.
Kramp alleges a date of conception and an actual reduction
to practice as early as December 23, 1992. Since the alleged
actual reduction to practice occurred prior to Bishop's effective
filing date, Kramp only needs to establish an actual reduction to
practice of the subject matter of the count prior to July 20,
1993, Bishop's effective filing date, to prevail in this
interference. See Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190,
26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("Priority goes to the
first party to reduce an invention to practice unless the other
party can show that it was the first to conceive the invention
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007