Interference No. 104,403
page 1.4). Conley also testifies that no drawing was enclosed in the
certified letter that he received from Rosenthal (Magee Record page
1.5). Conley further testifies that he did not receive any disclosure from
Rosenthal of a lenticular screen having concave lenses earlier than
March 10, 1995.
In response to Conley’s testimony, the junior party argues (Reply
brief at page 12) that the senior party relies on the self-serving blanket
denials of Conley who is essentially Magee’s agent. However, the
junior party has not proven that Conley is an agent of Magee. The
record reflects that Conley is the owner of Micro Lens Technology and
that he has offered his services in the past in preparing various optical
equipment to both Rosenthal, the junior party and Magee, the senior
party (Rosenthal Record pages 78 to 79).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the evidence as a whole is
not of sufficient weight to establish that the junior party communicated
the conception of the invention of the count to Conley in such a way as
to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
invention prior to the senior party’s reduction to practice.
This precludes any finding that Conley, in turn, communicated
the conception to the senior party. However, even if the junior party did
41
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007