inventor's inserted a reference to using a "phase mask" in the
1839 application approximately six weeks from when the office for
the Review received the Hill manuscript and from when the
manuscript was sent to the guest editors.
Snitzer has failed to provide a sufficient explanation for
making the insertion in the 1839 application without Snitzer's
first having read the Hill manuscript. As stated above, in
connection with Snitzer's alleged earlier conception, Snitzer has
failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it conceived of the
invention prior to 17 October 1992, when the Snitzer inventors
amended their application. Snitzer's alleged prior conception
and explanation for why the Snitzer inventors inserted the phase
mask embodiment in their 1839 application lack corroboration.
The lack of a sufficient explanation for the insert in Snitzer's
1839 application is further compelling evidence that tends to
support Hill's charge of derivation.
Based on the record before us, Hill has sufficiently
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Snitzer
derived the invention of the count from party Hill. Snitzer has
failed to demonstrate otherwise.
Snitzer's Miscellaneous Motion to
Suppress Anderson's evidence
We find it unnecessary to consider the specific objections
to the admissibility of Anderson's exhibits 1029-1031, 1033 and
1034, since Anderson has failed to demonstrate priority by a
55
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007