Interference No. 103,270
which she describes at CR-157 (supra), taken with the
description of the "Concept" and the apparatus shown in CX-65
and 66, is sufficient to show by corroborated evidence that as
of December 2, 1988, Coelho was in possession of a conception
of the method recited in count 2.
Keith et al. contend that Enger's testimony is not
credible because her testimony as to when Coelho explained his
ideas to her is based on the date of CX-65 and 66. This
argument is not persuasive. Enger was the person who signed
and dated
CX-65 and 66, and testified that when she did so, Coelho had
previously explained his ideas to her (CR-158). Thus, her
testimony as to when Coelho explained his ideas to her is
consistent with the date of the notebook pages, and there is
no
evidence in the record to contradict it. Keith et al. also 7
assert that Enger's statement that Coelho had explained that
one mechanism to freeze the position of the guidewire "could
7We note that Enger was not cross-examined.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007