Interference No. 103,675
Bouchard et al.'s motion to suppress and the supplemental
motion to suppress are GRANTED.
THE CASE FOR PRIORITY
Bouchard et al., by virtue of the filing date of their
French benefit application, are the senior party in this interference.
Accordingly, Chen et al., the junior party, bear the burden of proving
priority of invention by a preponderance of the evidence. Morgan v.
Hirsch, 728 F.2d 1449, 1451, 221 USPQ 193, 194 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647, 651, 190 USPQ 117, 120 (CCPA 1976); 37
C.F.R. § 1.657(b).
Chen et al. have alleged in their preliminary statement (see
Paper Numbers 19, 60 and 183) that they first conceived of the
invention of the counts on October 3, 1990, and that they began the
active exercise of reasonable diligence towards an actual reduction to
practice on October 3, 1990. Chen et al. have also alleged that they
actually reduced to practice the subject matter of the counts on
October 4, 1990.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.657(a), there is a rebuttable
presumption that the inventors made their respective inventions in the
chronological order of their effective filing dates. In their priority
brief (Paper Number 279), Bouchard et al. have chosen to rest on the
filing date of their French benefit application for their earliest
70
Page: Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007