Interference No. 103,322
The Parties’ Respective Priority Cases
Conception has been defined as the formation, in the
mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the
complete and operative invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d
353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(quoting Gunter v.
Stream, 573 F.2d 77, 80, 197 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1978)). It
is settled that in establishing conception a party must show
every feature recited in the count, and that every limitation
in the count must have been known at the time of the alleged
conception. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.
Neither conception nor reduction to practice may be
established by the uncorroborated testimony of the inventor.
See Tomecek v. Stimpson, 513 F.2d 614, 619, 185 USPQ 235, 239
(CCPA 1975). The inventor's testimony, standing alone, is
insufficient to prove conception--some form of corroboration
must be shown. See Price, 988 F.2d at 1194, 26 USPQ2d at
1036. While the "rule of reason" originally developed with
respect to reduc- tion to practice has been extended to the
corroboration required for proof of conception, the rule does
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007