United States Federal Circuit

Where substantial evidence supports the Board of Patent Appeals' conclusion that appellants did not conceive of particle size and sedimentation rate limitations prior to appellee's reduction of the invention to practice, appellee had priority of interference.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/20/2001
• Published 03/22/2001

Judges

• MICHEL, Circuit Judge., Before MICHEL, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• R. Danny Huntington,Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P., of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellants.   With him on the brief were Donna M. Meuth, and Bruce T. Wieder.


• For Appellees:
  
• Debra A. Shetka, Morrison & Foerster, L.L.P., of Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellees in 99-1604.  Gladys H. Monroy, Morrison & Foerster, L.L.P., of Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellees in 99-1605.   With them on the brief were Emily A. Evans, and Catherine M. Polizzi.   Of counsel was Karl J. Kramer.   Of counsel on the brief were P. Martin Simpson, Jr., and Sandra S. Schultz, The University of California, Office of General Counsel, of Oakland, CA.