Interference No. 103,270
disclosed the invention to others in such clear terms as to
enable those skilled in the art to practice the invention.
See Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, Keith et al. contend that Coelho's
evidence does not establish conception as of December 2, 1988,
for a number of reasons.
Keith et al. first argue that CX-65 and 66 do not
disclose all the method steps recited in count 2, which is
clearly the case. However, there is no requirement that all
limitations of a count be explicitly disclosed in a document
in order to prove conception; rather, we must apply the "rule
of
reason" and evaluate "all pertinent evidence . . . so that a
sound determination of the credibility of the inventor's story
may be reached." Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195, 26
USPQ2d 1031, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (original emphasis). In
the instant
case, Enger testified (as quoted above) that she signed CX-65
and
66 on December 2, 1988, and that Coelho had previously
explained his ideas to her. His explanation of his ideas,
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007