Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 21
Setting aside the question of whether these articles show that conception of the
invention would occur simultaneously with its reduction to practice, Davie has
misapplied the doctrine. The court (see supra) has interpreted the doctrine to permit a
party to rely on evidence of an actual reduction to practice as corroborative of
conception; not the reverse as Davie has done (i.e., using evidence of conception as
corroborative of reduction to practice). In effect, what Davie is doing is attempting to
establish priority based solely on evidence of conception, something 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)
does not permit. Davie has failed to show that it actually reduced an embodiment of the
invention of the interference count to practice prior to June 26, 1986.
III. OTHER ISSUES
We decide the outstanding motions as follows:
a. Joint Motion No. 1 to substitute a count under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(1) (paper no. 22).
DENIED for the reasons given earlier in the opinion.
b. Senior Party Grundmann’s Preliminary Motion No. 1 under 37 CFR § 1.633(f) to have
benefit of the filing date [March 12, 1986] of an earlier German priority application
accorded to Grundmann’s interfering application (paper no. 21).
reduction to practice of the subunit b of factor XIII. The ‘received’ date of that article if February 28,
1986, almost four months before Grundmann’s filing date of the first German application [i.e.,
June 26, 1986].
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007