Interference No. 102,755
application on Gillespie's invention until the invention could
be reduced to practice through testing on an aircraft
(Gillespie, NR 17, ¶ 11; Webb, NR 28, ¶ 9, NR 291:15-25, NR
292:16-23, and NR 296:3-9) is irrelevant because decisions
regarding Gillespie's invention do not inure to Nedelk's
benefit. See Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1332, 47
USPQ2d 1896, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("In order to establish
inurement, an inventor must show, among other things, that the
other person was working either explicitly or implicitly at
the inventor's request. See Chisum [on Patents (1995)],
supra, § 10.06[3]."). See also Hartley v. Joyce, 96 F.2d 296,
300, 37 USPQ 525, 529 (CCPA 1938) ("there seems to be no sound
reason why the activity of one inventor should inure to the
benefit of another merely because they are employed by the
same company.").
Beck testified that he and Ruof (who did not
testify) decided shortly after Beck learned of the invention
from Nedelk it would be a simple matter to modify an antiskid
system to include Nedelk's invention (NR 459:16-19), that they
made a sketch which Beck has no record of anymore (NR 459:22-
23; NR 462:16-24), and that "I think our idea at that time was
that, you know, when an application comes along we'll build
it, there isn't really any R & D to do." (NR 460:6-9.)
- 18 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007