was diligent. However, when coupled with the approximately one
month period of time that the draft application was in Wen-Foo
Chern's possession, we conclude that Chern has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate that it was diligent during the critical
period.
D. Judgment
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1,
page 49), the sole count in the interference, is awarded against
junior party WEN-FOO CHERN.
FTJRTHER ORDERED that junior party WEN-FOO CHERN is not
entitled to a patent containing claims 1-20 (corresponding to the
count) of U.S. patent 5,182,529 issued 26 January 1993, based on
application 07/847,331, filed 6 March 1992.
30
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007