Interference No. 103,878
We acknowledge that the junior party has argued that
Milling’s testimony is ambiguous, for in some instances her
testimony could possibly be interpreted to refer to both
Henson and Milling working together. In this regard, we
merely note that ambiguous testimony, whether from a putative
inventor or a putative corroborator, does not militate for
establishing a conception by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ambiguous testimony from Milling cuts against any legal
conclusion that Henson was an inventor. Due to this lack of
corroboration, it is our conclusion that the junior party has
not established that Henson is a co-inventor.
With respect to Wilkerson, it is our finding that
Wilkerson was outdoor products manager at Hubbell. JP41.
When Brammer received the facsimile drawing from Henson, he
referred
it to Wilkerson. JP41. Wilkerson stated that his
contributions to the invention were finding a reflector head
with the correct parabolic shape, moving the latches to fit
the standard NEMA head, and specifying a diffuse finish to
give a uniform spread of light. JP51-52.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007