Interference No. 103,029
is corroborated by the stipulations as noted in our findings
of fact. It is our finding that Federl and Kipouras
approached Goodrich with a problem at hand, a mere general
goal, or research plan they hoped to pursue. Burroughs, 40
F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1919. Barnhouse at Goodrich solved
the problem, but did not intend to disclose the specifics or
particulars of the successful copolymer to Borg-Warner. That
Federl and Kipouras ascertained the composition of the ECH/EO
copolymer, whether by analysis or otherwise, from the samples
Barnhouse conveyed to them, in no manner changes the fact that
Federl and Kipouras have derived the invention from Barnhouse
and
Yu. Furthermore, the fact that Federl and Kipouras are
entitled to an earlier effective filing date is of no avail to
them, since Barnhouse has established derivation by a
preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we will enter22
22 Once derivation is shown, it is immaterial who
reduced to practice first. Tolle v. Starkey, 255 F.2d 935,
938, 118 USPQ 292, 296 (CCPA 1958). See also Boyd v. Tamutus,
1 USPQ2d 2080, 2083 n.4 (Bd. Pat. App. Int. 1986).
36
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007