Interference No. 104,807
Page No. 4
the '746 application file.
As the parties have agreed that the inventorship of the Flamm application and the
Vinogradov patent are one and the same, and have submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating
that the inventorship is the same, we conclude that the invention was not made by "such other
inventor" or by "another inventor."' Accordingly, we terminate this interference and remand the
involved Flamm '746 application and Vinogradov '034 patent to the examiner for further
consideration. The examiner shall review the papers listed above to ensure that the inventorship
changes are in technical compliance with USPTO procedures, and if not, provide an opportunity
for correction.
Upon consideration of the record, it is:
ORDERED that the interference is terminated.
FURTHER ORDERED that Motion I to correct inventorship of Flamm U.S.
Application No. 08/748,746 is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Motion 2 to correct inventorship of Vinogradov et al., U.S.
'35 U.S.C. §102(g) is set forth below:
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291,
another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that
before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and
not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof,
the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned,
suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection,
there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to
practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to
conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
(Emphasis added).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007