Interference No. 103,169
1984 (BR 5:498).
We have reviewed this evidence and find it insufficient to establish a corroborated
communication of a complete conception sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art
to construct and successfully operate the invention. Since such communication is a
requisite for showing derivation, Hedgwick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 907, 182 USPQ 167,
168 (CCPA 1974), Chenevey et al. have not carried their burden on this issue.
With respect to Berry, Chenevey et al. fail to explain how Chenevey’s activities in
1982 establish a corroborated communication of a complete conception. Moreover, an
inventor’s testimony, with respect to the facts surrounding a claim of derivation cannot,
standing alone, rise to the level necessary to establish derivation. Price v Symsek, 988
F.2d at 1190, 26 USPQ2d at 1033. Further, CX 37-39 stand suppressed, and if not
suppressed, would be non probative because Chenevey et al. admit that the contents of
CX 37-39 are not germane to forming a biaxially oriented film (CR 19: 1984-1986). Lastly,
Berry could not misappropriate information from Chenevey in the spring of 1982 regarding
the use of PBT in its reaction solvent (PPA) because such information and its attendant
advantages were publicly available in August, 1981 (BX IIII).
That members of AIRC and FM attended The Polymer Order Workshop in
November, 1983, and that Baars met with Chenevey in May, 1984, are insufficient to
establish derivation. Chenevey’s allegations that he provided a tutorial on how to
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007