Interference No. 104,067
meet all the limitations of the count. For example, the
disclosure document, including the parts list, fails to establish
that the machine pictured comprises a "generally cylindrical
housing and generally cylindrical member defining a pair of
relatively longitudinally movable surfaces being disposed in
diverging relation" (emphasis added) as required by the count.
Without more, Kramp has failed to show that he constructed
an embodiment that met all the limitations of the count. See
Coocer, 154 F.3d at 1326, 47 USPQ2d at 1900 (junior party bears
the burden of proving priority by a preponderance of the
evidence). Therefore, for this additional reason, junior party
Kramp has failed to establish an actual reduction to practice of
the subject matter of the count.
V.
Finally, Kramp argues that senior party Bishop derived his
invention from junior party Kramp. Specifically, Kramp argues
that the minutes of a shareholders' meeting of Waste Tire Grinder
Company, Inc. dated April 23, 1993 (Kramp Exhibit H-1), and a
conflicts check report dated December 22, 1992 (Kramp Exhibit
T-1) establish that senior party Bishop had knowledge of junior
party Kramp's invention as early as December 22, 1992. See
Brief, page 8.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007