Interference No. 104,290
Edwards based on lack of descriptive support under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. Since Edwards' only claim in the
interference had been determined to be unpatentable to Edwards,
the panel first ruled that junior party LeVeen need not put on
a priority case.
The panel subsequently modified its ruling and required
junior party to prove priority, because, notwithstanding the lack
of written description for Edwards' claim, the Edwards specifica
tion still appears to be a constructive reduction to practice of
at least one embodiment falling within the scope of the count.
In this new order, 6 Edwards was permitted to argue abandonment,
suppression, or concealment at final hearing, to attack LeVeen's
evidence of conception, reduction to practice, and diligence, and
to introduce rebuttal evidence.
Issues
The following issues are raised by the parties in their
briefs:
a) has junior party LeVeen established an actual
reduction to practice before the effective filing date of the
Paper No. 2ý0.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007