Interference No. 103,029
along predetermined lines does not indicate contribution to
the conception of an invention. See Bac v. Loomis, 252 F.2d
571, 577, 117 USPQ 29, 34 (CCPA 1958)(LORAN patent case);
Fredkin v. Irasek, 397 F.2d 342, 158 USPQ 280 (CCPA), cert.
denied, 393 U.S. 980 (1968) and Sewell, 21 F.3d at 415, 30
USPQ2d at 1358.
As a further factor with regard to derivation, we
are aware of a line of cases that might be called the
unrebutted derivation cases. See Rhodes v. Dugan, 212 USPQ
699 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1981) following Tolle, 255 F.2d 935, 118
USPQ 292. In these cases, the unrebutted testimony regarding
derivation raises the presumption of its accuracy. See also,
Hedgewick, 497 F.2d at 908, n.3, 182 USPQ at 169, n.3 and
Rivise and Caesar, Inter- ference Law and Practice, Vol. IV,
§§649 and 657 (Michie Co., 1940). We merely mention in
passing that Federl and Kipouras have not testified, and24
24 We note that junior party Kipouras did not request
further testimony when senior party Barnhouse moved to amend
the Barnhouse preliminary statement to allege derivation.
Additional discovery has often been granted where derivation
has been alleged. See, for example, Jurek v. Foote, 220 USPQ
888, 889 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1982).
(continued...)
39
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007