Interference No. 104,190
meaning of the scope of the claim or count. That is not the 7
case here.
Accordingly, we have given no consideration to the testimony
of Messrs. Rydell and Osborne about the scope and meaning of
claim terminology in the Parins patent.8
Junior Party Priority Case
Conception has been defined as the formation, in the
mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the
complete and operative invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d
353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(quoting Gunter v.
Stream, 573 F.2d 77, 80, 197 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1978)).
7We are aware of a line of cases culminating in Mezrich
v. Lee, 201 USPQ 922 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1978) standing for the
proposition that we accord no consideration to the inventor's
testimony in answer to questions on direct examination which
required any qualification in context of or with reference to
the specifications and claims of the respective parties. We
leave open the question of whether that proposition is good
law, at least with respect to patents, after Markman.
8Nor have we given any consideration to the senior
party’s argument that Osborne’s testimony as to the meaning of
the “blade supporting” language has changed over time.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007