Chern may prevail if Chern can establish that it was the
first to conceive the invention and that it exercised reasonable
diligence from a time prior to Yamada's conception until its own
reduction to practice. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g); 204 F.3d at 1097, 53
USPQ2d at 1698. Chern must establish that it conceived prior to
Yamada's 9 December 1991 Japanese filing date and that Chern was
reasonably diligent from a time prior to 9 December 1991 until
Chern's effective filing date of 6 March 1992.
Conception
Conception is the formation in the inventor's mind of a
definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative
invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice. Cooper
v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1998). The inventor must recognize and appreciate the invention
at the time, i.e., there is no nunc pro tune conception. Breen
v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d 1398, 1401, 176 USPQ 519, 521 (CCPA 1973).
Corroboration is required to prove conception. Price v. Symsek,
988 F.2d 1187, 1190, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Chern alleges that it conceived of the invention and had
independent corroboration of the conception by at least August 1,
1991. To demonstrate conception and corroboration of the
conception, Chern relies on the Tnvention Disclosure (Ex. 2002)
and the affidavits of Chern (Ex. 2001) and Trent (Ex. 2010).
Yamada makes several arguments as to why Chern has fa,-,,d to
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007