Interference No. 102,922
Interference No. 103,088
knowledge Gill had at the time of the invention; (2) what took
place at earlier meetings between Gill and Dumas; and (3) that
Dumas did not derive from Gill.
We are of the opinion that Dumas has established his
charge that the party Gill derived the invention from him.
Gill's failure to offer testimony to rebut Dumas testimony on
the issue of originality raises a strong presumption that it
is accurate.
Tolle v. Starkey, 255 F.2d 935, 937, 118 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA
1958).
Gill believes that Dumas must establish what was in
Gill's
mind at the time of derivation. Gill has cited no authority
to support his position. On the contrary, Dumas’ burden was
to establish conception and communication. An absolute
defense to
the charge of derivation is for the opponent to prove an
earlier conception. Herein, Gill made no attempt to prove an
earlier conception.
Gill indicates that Gill testified that AKD was one of
the many products being evaluated (DR 132 and DX 10). A
review of this testimony and more specifically DX 10 shows
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007