Interference No. 104,403
Accordingly, we find that the evidence fails to establish, either
that Conley communicated the conception to the senior party, or that
any information which may have been communicated constituted a
complete and enabling conception.
As we have detailed above, although the junior party has proven
a reduction to practice of the invention of the count prior to the filing
date of the ‘055 application, the junior party has failed to prove
complete communication thereof, either to Conley initially or to the
senior party ultimately. Accordingly, the junior party has likewise failed
to prove derivation.
Magee Preliminary Motion 3
The senior party seeks judgment against the junior party on the
ground that the junior party’s claims 1 through 8 and 11, which
correspond to the count, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
prior art.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting
evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for
one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him
to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re
Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The senior party argues (pages 1 to 2 ):
43
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007