Interference No. 102,922 Interference No. 103,088 On the basis of the above facts, we conclude that Dumas has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he, Dumas, was the inventor of the invention defined by the counts (Gill version) in both interferences and that Gill derived the invention from him. Dumas had a complete conception of the invention as evidenced by DX 7 and DX 9 and that conception was communicated to Gill prior to the date accorded Gill. Hence, in our view Dumas has sustained his burden of proof in both interferences. In addition, we find that the testing of the Hercules products on PCC and the making of the handsheets therefrom by Pfizer inures to the benefit of Dumas. Shumaker v. Paulson, 136 F.2d 700, 703, 58 USPQ 279, 282 (CCPA 1943). Gill argues that the Dumas showing has not shown every feature of the count, to wit, that the alkyl ketene dimer and its cationic properties are not adequately identified. Gill urges that the only way to establish the identity of HerconŽ 40 and HerconŽ 48 is to go to the notebooks of Dumas which notebooks were never entered into the record. We are not persuaded by 23Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007