Interference No. 104,067
grinding machine." See Kramp Exhibit H-1, pp. 3 and 4; Kramp
Exhibit T-1. Without more, Kramp's case for derivation must
fail.,
Judc[ment
Judgment as to Count 1, the sole count in issue, is entered
against the junior party, Richard C. Kramp. Richard C. Kramp is
not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-26 which correspond
to Count 1.
91nurement, on the other hand, involves a claim by an
inventor that, as a matter of law, the acts of another person
should accrue to the benefit of the inventor. Cooper, 154 F.2d
at 1331, 47 USPQ2d at 1904. Junior party Kramp has provided no
evidence that work performed by senior party Bishop should accrue
to the benefit of Kramp. Therefore, Kramp cannot rely on any
activities by Bishop to establish an actual reduction to practice
prior to July 20, 1993.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007