Interference No. 104,403
proven that it resumed activity on the invention prior to the senior
party’s entrance into the field and proceeded diligently to file the
application. As such, we conclude that the junior party suppressed or
concealed the invention and is therefore not entitled to rely on its
reduction to practice date of August 14, 1992 to prove priority. The
junior party is restricted to its filing date of January 18, 1995.
Derivation
The junior party alleges that the senior party derived the
invention from the junior party (Rosenthal Opening Brief page 34). The
junior party alleges that his complete conception was communicated to
Conley, and that Conley further communicated the conception to the
senior party (Rosenthal Opening Brief page 34).
In order to establish derivation, the junior party must show (1)
prior, complete conception of the claimed subject matter and (2)
communication of the complete conception to the senior party. Cooper
v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1332, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1905 (Fed. Cir.
1998); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033
(Fed. Cir. 1993); Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 908, 182 USPQ
167, 169 (CCPA 1974). Regarding communication, the standard for
derivation is “whether the communication enabled one of ordinary skill
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007