Interference No. 103,878
As to Wilkerson’s contribution, this was not an
elaborate program of research, experimentation, or design of
parts, which would be necessary to consider him as a co-
inventor, but merely the selection of the size and shape of
certain parts, i.e., the proper high bay reflector and the
location of NEMA
toggle latches on the stock spun aluminum reflector which
already had the correct surface finish. We see it as simply
the exercise of the normal skill expected of an ordinary
lighting designer, which would not have involved any inventive
acts on the part of Wilkerson. The necessity of a certain
amount of selection of sizes of parts, materials, etc., 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.
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007