that Rishton was confused about the timing of the conversations
he had with the Snitzer inventors.
Under these circumstances, and while the matter may not be
free from doubt, we find that Snitzer has failed to convincingly
establish that Dr. Rishton's testimony, either alone or in
combination with Drs. Prohaska's and Stubbs' testimony and the
Invention Questionnaire, corroborate Snitzer's alleged
conception.
Lacking from the record is sufficient credible testimony to
permit us to accurately determine, as a matter of fact, that a
phase mask, or the concept of a phase mask, was discussed during
the initial conversations between Drs. Snitzer, Rishton, and
Prohaska. While there is a possibility that a phase mask, or the
concept of a phase mask was discussed, a possibility is not
sufficient. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence must
establish that a phase mask, or the concept of a phase mask was
discussed during the initial meetings. A preponderance of the
evidence is not based on mere possibilities.
Snitzer further relies on the uncorroborated oral testimony
of inventor Dr. Prohaska to demonstrate that Dr. Prohaska
performed phase mask calculations within about one to two weeks
of 21 July 1992 (Paper 278 at 53). Snitzer fails to provide
corroboration of the calculations. Note, inventor testimony must
be corroborated. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154-F.3d 1321, 1330, 47
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007