Interference No. 103,169
Responding to the Baars et al. argument that Chenevey et al. failed to establish a
?corroborated conception, ” Chenevey et al. argue that documents and ?things” do not
need to be corroborated, testimony does. However, if reliance is placed upon an exhibit,
the content of the exhibit and its existence at a point in time must be established
(corroborated) by the testimony of a person other than the inventor.
Chenevey et al. case for communication16
Chenevey et al., in their brief, allege that Baars et al. derived the Chenevey et al.
invention indirectly from Berry, on January 11, 1983, when Berry and Chenevey et al. met.
Chenevey et al. allege that Berry was Chenevey’s consultant in 1982, and during that time
(1) Chenevey disclosed to Berry his ideas for using a rotating die to extrude a biaxial film
as described in CX 39, (CR19: 1963-64 and 66); (2) Chenevey went to Berry’s laboratory
with some reaction mixture dope and used Berry’s apparatus (CR 1946-1949); and (3)
Chenevey sent reports (CX 37-39) to Berry (CR19: 1944-1945).
Chenevey et al. also allege that Baars et al. derived the Chenevey et al. invention
directly from Chenevey when (1) Guzdar learned of tube extrusion from Chenevey at The
Polymer Order Workshop in November, 1983 (BR 5: 482,483, 487, 488, 489); (2)
Lusignea learned how to make PBT film from Chenevey at the same workshop (BR 11:
984,985); and (3) Baars met with Chenevey at Celanese in May,
16 The earliest date that Chenevey et al. can establish for derivation is June 30,
1984. 37 CFR § 1.629(a).
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007