Appeal No. 2001-1918
Application No. 09/096,999
1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We have carefully considered the declaration
and evidence filed August 24, 1999, and we do not understand how the evidence may
be thought to show conception of the invention prior to May 13, 1994. Under Rule 131,
there must be “a factual showing of completion of the invention before the critical date.”
In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 719, 184 USPQ 29, 33-34 (CCPA 1974). The
“handwritten telephone notes,” alleged to be generated on or about September, 1993
(Brief at 8), fail to show a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative
invention, either alone or in combination with the other evidence provided.
Moreover, it was appellant’s burden to explain how the exhibits may show
completion of the invention. See Borkowski at 719, 184 USPQ at 33 (“It was appellants'
burden to explain the content of these notebook pages as proof of acts amounting to
reduction to practice. That was not done.”). Vague and general statements in a
declaration with respect to what the exhibits show -- i.e., general, conclusory statements
such as “conception” and “reduction to practice” -- are insufficient. See id. at 718, 184
USPQ at 33 (vague and general statements amount to mere pleading, unsupported by
proof or showing of facts).
We conclude that the character and weight of the evidence submitted pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.131(b) is insufficient to show conception before the critical date of May 13,
1994.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007