Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 5
Declaring an interference creates a presumption that an interference-in-fact exists.
Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750, 221 USPQ 196, 200 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 872, 224 USPQ 736 (1984). Therefore, we proceed to address all matters
raised in the parties’ briefs.
II. PRIORITY
In deciding the issue of priority, we will focus on the facts and arguments raised in
the parties’ briefs.6
Who Has the Burden of Proof to Establish an Earlier Date of Invention?
Davie has the burden of proof to establish an earlier date of invention.
Grundmann is the senior party and asserts (brief, p. 5) priority based on the
following dates:
• June 26, 1986. This is the filing date of foreign priority application DE 3621371.3,
the benefit of which was accorded to Grundmann’s interfering application when the
interference was declared. There is no dispute that Grundmann is entitled to this priority
date. Therefore, it is not disputed that Grundmann entered on this date.
• March 12, 1986. This is Grundmann’s disputed priority date. Grundmann has
moved pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(f) (Preliminary Motion No. 1, see paper no. 21) to
6 In making a determination as to priority, the Board will review only those facts, issues and arguments
the parties relied upon in their briefs. See 37 CFR §§ 1.656(b)(5) and (b)(6).The Board should not be put
under the burden of scouring the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind and serve
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007