Interference No. 103,345
or circumstances that corroborate Jeffrey Staples's testimony.
Staples's contention that conception is confirmed by Exhibit
J, which is a "Record of Conception of Invention" dated
"7/16/92," is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, the
existence of this document on that date is uncorroborated.20
Second, assuming that the invention record's "7/16/92" date
were corroborated and that a device disclosed therein
satisfies the limitations of the count, it fails to
corroborate that conception occurred more than one month
earlier, i.e., prior to June 16, 1992, or that the first and
second models were made prior to that date.
For the forgoing reasons, Staples has not shown that
he was the first to conceive. Therefore, had Roberge proved
that he had coupled his June 16, 1992, conception date with
the requisite diligence, Staples would have been unable to
prevail as the first to conceive and the first to reduce to
practice. Thus, priority would have been awarded to Roberge.
Although the invention record includes the signature of20
Linda Nann(?) indicating that it was witnessed and understood on
"9/10/92," she did not testify. Nor did anyone else corroborate
the date of this document.
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007