8. Drawings for the patent application, said to have
been prepared by Robert Romero, were received by Newhouse on
24 December 1996 (Affidavit, ¶ 23).
9. On 31 December 1996 (Ex 2034, page 4) or 2 January
1997 (Affidavit, ¶ 24), a warmed forced air embodiment was added
to the draft patent application. The embodiment appears as
Figure 9 and is described at column 3, line 61 through column 4,
line 13 of Chang's involved patent.
10. On 2 January 1997, Newhouse had completed
modifications to the draft patent application and on that day
called Chang to come to his office to sign the patent application
(Affidavit, ¶ 24).
11. Chang signed the patent application on 3 January
1997 (Affidavit, ¶ 24; see also the declaration filed with the
patent application).
12. Chang's application 08/779,000 was filed with the
Patent and Trademark Office via Express Mail 3 January 1997.
C. Discussion
To prevail on priority under the facts of this case, Chang
must establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1) conception
prior to 20 December 1996, coupled with reasonable diligence from
a time prior to 20 December 1996 until Chang's constructive
reduction to practice on 3 January 1997. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
Chang's case for priority must be adequately corroborated. Singh
v. Brake, 222 F.3d 1362, 1367, 55 USPQ2d 1673, 1676 (Fed. Cir.
2000); Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1449, 41 USPQ2d 1686,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007