Interference No. 103,611
It is considered that Miller has established conception of
the subject matter of the count on or about April 20, 1988, as
alleged.
Stevens did not take cross-examination of Miller’s
witnesses, and Miller’s case for prior conception based on the
testimony of the inventor Miller and the corroborating witness,
Raymond Holobaugh, as it relates to Miller Exhibit C, is not
challenged in the briefs of party Stevens.
The testimony of the inventor Miller regarding conception on
or about April 20, 1988 is corroborated by the testimony of
Holobaugh and Miller Exhibit C. The apparatus in Exhibit C is
very much similar to the apparatus disclosed in Figures 5-8 of
Stevens’ involved application and in Figures 19 and 20 of
Miller’s involved application. The only portion of the invention
defined in the count not evident in the exhibit are the stops.
However, the testimony of the inventor and Holobaugh establishes
that the support members had stops on opposite ends thereof to
limit movement of the plastic members in one direction and to
allow pivotal movement in the opposite direction. 3
3 Even if we had found that the count is ambiguous as alleged by
Stevens and that it should be interpreted in light of Stevens’
specification, because the apparatus illustrated in Miller
Exhibit C is structurally very close to that illustrated in
Figures 5-8 of Stevens and Figures 19 and 20 of Miller, we would
still have concluded that Miller conceived the invention on or
about April 20, 1988. In the involved applications of the
(continued...)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007