interference No. 104,067
Roger Hardee is said to "confirm" Bishop's knowledge of
Kramp's invention in an affidavit wherein Mr. Hardee states
(Hardee affidavit dated January 28, 2000, paragraph 5):
5. Proof of Mr. Bishop's knowledge of the invention
of Mr. Kramp will be confirmed by the Minutes of
Stockholders' Meeting dated April 23, 1993, attached
hereto and labeled as Exhibit H-1, showing him to be a
shareholder in the Assignee at a point prior to his
filing date as Sr. Party in this interference.
Vi.
To prove derivation, a party must show (1) prior conception
of the subject matter of the count and (2) communication of the
conception to the opponent. Price, 988 F.2d at 1190, 26 USPQ2d
at 1033; Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 908, 182 USPQ 167, 169
(CCPA 1974). The subject matter communicated must have been
sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to
construct and successfully operate the invention. Mead v.
McKirnan, 585 F.2d 504, 507, 199 USPQ 513, 515 (CCPA 1978).
The record is simply devoid of any evidence which
establishes that a conception of the subject matter of the count
was communicated to Bishop. See Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353,
359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (to establish conception
a party must show every feature recited in the count). The
shareholder minutes merely mention a "tire grinding machine," and
the conflicts check report does not even refer to a "tire
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007