1689 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360, 224
USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The definition of conception is set out in Mergenthaler v.
Scudder, 11 App.D.C. 264, 731, 1897 Dec. Comm'r. Pat. 724, 731
(1897), and has been accepted by our appellate reviewing court,
Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901
(Fed. Cir. 1998); Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
802 F.2d 1367, 1375, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986):
The conception of the invention consists in the
complete performance of the mental part of the
inventive act. All that remains to be accomplished in
order to perfect the act or instrument belongs to the
department of construction, not invention. It is,
therefore, the formation in the mind of the inventor of
a definite and permanent idea of the complete and
operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied
in practice that constitutes an available conception
within the meaning of the patent law.
In our view, the discussion of Figure 3 on pages 5-6 of the
draft specification in existence on 6 December 1996 (Ex 2024)
constitutes a conception. The conception is corroborated because
it was completed by Newhouse, who also signed the Affidavit.
Under the facts of this case, as a matter of law, Chang has
established a corroborated conception no later than 18 December
1996.
It is also our view that Chang has established reasonable
diligence from (1) prior to Winer's filing date of 20 December
1996 until (2) Chang's filing date of, and constructive reduction
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007