at the time the invention was made (Paper 45 at 3, para. 12).
Apart from that conclusory statement and apart from the filing
of a copy of the settlement agreement, no evidence was
submitted to demonstrate the existence of that obligation or
when the obligation arose, and no explanation was set forth as
to how the evidence supports the alleged conclusion.
We decline to take up the role of counsel to
independently sift through the record to see how any 3
collection of evidence can be mustered to support a persuasive
argument that there was an obligation to assign, and that such
an obligation to assign existed at the time the inventions
were made. See Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc.,
164 F.3d 110, 112, 49 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (2d Cir. 1999)
(declining invitation to scour record to make out a party's
case for it). "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs." United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956
(7th Cir. 1991).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the
terminal disclaimer that Herzog has filed is sufficient to
render rejections that can be made between the Sarles and
Herzog applications moot. Further, since Herzog has failed to
3The “settlement agreement” is approximately 60 pages in
length.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007