Interference No. 103,169
process PBT and spoke of tube extrusion do not establish that the information provided
was sufficient to communicate to the workshop attendees a complete conception of the
subject matter of the count. We find insufficient detail in the Chenevey et al. allegations to
conclude that Chenevey et al. have or sustained their burden, especially where as here,
Chenevey’s alleged communications stand uncorroborated, and Chenevey himself admits
that the information he presented at the Workshop did not involve the work done in October
and November, 1983, the time when Chenevey alleged that he reduced the invention to
practice (CR 4: 296-297).
Even though we have found that Chenevey et al. have failed to establish derivation,
for the sake of completeness, we will address conception by Baars et al., especially since
an earlier conception is an absolute defense to the charge of derivation. Denen v. Buss,
801 F.2d 385, 386, 231 USPQ 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Baars et al. conception
We find that Baars et al. have established a date of conception no later than
January 31, 1983, the date the proposal was due at AFWP.
Baars et al. allege six dates for conception. In support of these dates, Baars et al.
offer the testimony of coinventors Lusignea, Davis and Baars; and corroborators: Guzdar,
Eagles and Berry, as well as exhibits, BX H-P.
We focus on three of these exhibits: (1) BX J, notes taken by Lusignea at a
developmental meeting on January 19, 1983; (2) BX N, the AIRC proposal which was
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007