Interference No. 103,878
provided its own corroboration, inasmuch as it was evidence of
what was conceived, since it showed a sketch of the invention.
However, if a party places reliance on an embodiment
of the invention in some physical form, such as a sketch or
drawing, for proof of conception, the existence of the
embodiment at the time must be established by testimony of a
person other than the inventor. Moran v. Paskert, 205 USPQ
356, 359 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1979). Accord Price, 988 F.2d at
1196, 26 USPQ2d at 1037-38 (testimony of secretary that she
recalled seeing drawing as of critical date provides
necessary evidence corroborating testimony of inventor as to
date of conception). Therefore,
we are constrained to hold that the senior party exhibit 1 is
uncorroborated and can provide no support for a senior party
conception prior to the meeting with Henson and Milling.
Junior Party’s Originality Case
The junior party’s claim for inventorship is based
on the following facts. In February 1993, James A. Henson, a
manufacturer’s representative for Hubbell, and his assistant,
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007