Interference No. 104,649
Page No. 46
sufficient suggestion of motivation for the combination proposed, Keagy Preliminary Motion I is
denied.
G. Priority of Invention is Awarded Against Junior Party Zhou
Keagy has been accorded a benefit date of September 16, 1994 for purposes of priority.
(Notice Declaring Interference, Paper No. 1, p. 4). Zhou has not alleged a date of conception
prior to Keagy's earliest accorded priority benefit date. (Zhou's Transmittal of Preliminary
Statement and Notice, Paper No. 23, p. 1). Accordingly, priority of invention is awarded against
Junior Party Zhou.
IV. Order
As apparent from our discussion above, Zhou has not alleged a date of conception prior to
Keagy's earliest accorded priority date. Thus, this decision on motions becomes a final
decision.' Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that Zhou Preliminary Motion I is denied.
FURTHER ORDERED that Zhou Preliminary Motion 2 is denied.
FURTHER ORDERED that Zhou Preliminary Motion 3 is denied.
FURTHER ORDERED that Zhou Preliminary Motion 4 is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Keagy Preliminary Motion I is denied.
'Normally we would enter an Order to Show Cause as to why this interference should
continue. At this juncture, however, the time for submitting additional evidence is past. As
such, a response to an Order to Show Cause would in essence be a Request for Reconsideration.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007