circumstances in the record must be considered in evaluating the
sufficiency of the communication. Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d
905, 908, 182 USPQ 167, 169 (CCPA 1974).
Although there is no direct evidence that Elias Snitzer
received and read the Hill manuscript, the facts before us
present strong circumstantial evidence which support Hill's
charge of derivation.
Dr. Snitzer was a guest editor for the Annual Review of
Materials Science, Volume 23. In early April 1992, Dr. Snitzer
invited Dr. Hill to write an article for.the Review (Finding 65).
Dr. Hill prepared a fax of an outline of the Hill manuscript to
send to Dr. Snitzer, allegedly per the request of Dr. Snitzer.
Around the same time, per Dr. Hill's testimony, Cooperman the
production editor for the Review sent a letter to Dr. Hill
confirming that he agreed to write an article for the Review.
After which, also per Dr. Hill's testimony, Dr. Snitzer requested
that the manuscript be sent directly to him. Dr. Hill further
testified that in May of 1992, a second Cooperman letter was sent
to Dr. Hill informing him that a copy of his manuscript should be
sent directly to the Annual Review Office and not to the guest
editors as either guest editor had previously requested (Finding
72).
The Hill manuscript was received by the office for the
Review on 8 September 1992 (Findings 49 and 54). The Hill
48
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007