Interference No. 102,755
Likewise, when asked whether at that time they "basically were
just waiting for an application", he replied, "That's right."
(NR 462:25 to 463:1.) This testimony is insufficient to
establish the required intent to reduce to practice because it
does not establish a decision by ABSC at that time to reduce
Nedelk's invention to practice as soon as possible. On the
contrary, when asked whether there was a conscious decision by
someone in 1985 to table the invention until a suitable
aircraft came along to bid on, Beck replied, "A conscious
decision? I guess I'm -- I don't know if it was or not."
(NR 459:8-12.)
While Beck and Crampton gave various reasons why it
was determined to be necessary to delay efforts to reduce the
invention to practice until a suitable new aircraft became
available, they did not give specific dates for these
determinations, let alone dates prior to Stimson's February
16, 1988, benefit date. Specifically, Beck testified as
follows (NR 7-8, ¶¶ 11-13):
11. While Nedelk's concept was
theoretically attractive, and while
available data correlating carbon wear with
energy dissipation suggested that improved
carbon utilization could be obtained by
following Nedelk's concept, we know from
long experience in dealing with aircraft
that concepts of this nature may only be
substantiated by actual in-field use on an
- 19 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007