provided any evidence corroborating the authenticity and the date of the document. The existence of a
document disclosing the conception must be corroborated. Compare, Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222,
1231, 211 USPQ 936, 945 (CCPA 1981) (uncorroborated notebooks did not establish the date of
invention) with Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (date
and authenticity of documents corroborated by a non-inventor who testified to seeing the document around
the time it was dated).
Considering all the evidence relating to conception, Solomon has failed to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, a date of conception of his invention prior to Bhagavatula’s filing effective
filing date of December 8, 1993.
4. Diligence
As part of the evidence, Solomon as submitted a sealed envelop. Solomon asserts that
On November 15, 1993, I wrote and mailed a brief description of invention to
myself. The actual sealed envelope, postmarked November 15, 1993 containing
this brief description is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
Preliminary Statement of William Solomon, p. 2, ¶ 11. Exhibit E is an apparently sealed envelope bearing
the following handwritten address:
William Solomon
4818 W. R[ineligble]
Chicago, IL 60641
The envelope also bears a return address sticker with the following:
Mr. William Solomon
4818 W. Roscoe St # 2
Chicago, IL 60641
The letter is post marked:
- 14 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007