ROSENTHAL v. MAGEE - Page 54




              Interference No. 104,403                                                                                     

                 M3 Systems Inc, 157 F.3d 1340, 1364, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1242 (Fec.                                           
                 Cir. 1998).                                                                                               
                        The essence of  the junior party’s argument is that Conley told                                    
                 Rosenthal in a telephone conversation on October 31, 1993 that Magee                                      
                 already knew about the above-listed Rosenthal patents (Rosenthal                                          
                 record pages 41- 42).  The only evidence of this communication                                            
                 between Rosenthal and Conley is the testimony of Rosenthal who is the                                     
                 junior party.  As there is no corroboration of this communication, we do                                  
                 not accord substantial weight to this evidence.                                                           




                        However, even if we were to accord substantial weight to the                                       
                 Rosenthal testimony, it would not establish that Conley in fact                                           
                 communicated the patent numbers to the senior party.                                                      
                        Without demonstrating that the senior party knew of the                                            
                 Rosenthal patents during the prosecution of the Magee patent                                              
                 application, the junior party has failed to prove with clear and convincing                               
                 evidence that the senior party made a deliberate omission of fact, much                                   
                 less that any action or inaction of the senior party was done with the                                    
                 intent to deceive the patent examiner.  This motion is denied.                                            



                                                      54                                                                   





Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007