Interference No. 103,435
However, none of these facts proves that Larry Blake is
not credible. More importantly, there is no evidence on the
record about exactly what was communicated by Kenneth Mayhan.
Therefore, even if we found that Kenneth Mayhan more credible
than Larry Blake, the Junior party has not established that
Mayhan communicated a complete conception of the invention to
Larry Blake. See Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d at 908, 182
USPQ at 169. For these reasons, we hold that the Junior party
has not proven that Larry Blake derived the invention from
Richard Christ, Patricia Knight and David Fencil.
As we have determined that the Junior party has not
proven derivation, the Senior party’s motion for a surrebuttal
period to obtain testimony concerning a lawsuit in which Larry
Blake was a defendant and the Senior party’s motion to exclude
the evidence relating to the lawsuit is moot.
We will not address the various objections to evidence
contained in the Senior party’s 37 CFR § 1.656(h) motion, as
we have determined that even if the evidence objected to is
admitted, the Junior party has still failed to prove
derivation.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007