f.
Morrison also argues that its patent was issued about 18
months after the Morrison application was filed and that a patent
has not issued to Lakes notwithstanding Lakes filed first (Paper
51, page 10). A "failure", if that is what it is, of a patent to
issue to Lakes is not relevant on whether Morrison suppressed or
concealed its actual reduction to practice.
D. Order
Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the briefs,
and the evidence to which they make reference, and for the
reasons given, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1
(Paper 1, page 4) and Count 2 (Paper 27, pages 1-2), the only
counts in the interference, is awarded against junior party
David S. Morrison.
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party David S. Morrison
is not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-17 (corresponding
to Count 1) and claim 18 (corresponding to Count 2) of patent
5,378,249.
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made
of record in files of (1) application 08/442,661, (2) application
08/896,060 and (3) U.S. Patent 5,378,249.
- 19 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007