involved Herman application), essentially identical to the Barnes patent, naming himself sole
inventor. Herman believes that he should have been named as the sole inventor in the Barnes
patent and that Barnes was incorrectly named as an inventor. Herman has filed a preliminary
motion (Paper 29 - Herman second substitute preliminary motion 1) for judgement against
Barnes on the ground that the Barnes patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) for naming the
incorrect inventors.
After time had expired for filing preliminary motions, Herman sought to file a belated
preliminary motion. Herman miscellaneous motion 2, seeking leave to file the belated
preliminary motion was denied by a three judge panel (Paper 64). Herman requested
reconsideration of that decision (Paper 87).
The parties agreed to proceed directly to final hearing on the matters of inventorship and
reconsideration of the interlocutory decision denying Herman miscellaneous motion 2 (Paper 85).
A final hearing was held on 27 February 2003.
During oral argument, after extensive questioning from the panel directed to Herman's
miscellaneous motion 2, Herman withdrew that motion. Accordingly, Herman's request for
reconsideration of the interlocutory decision denying Herman miscellaneous motion 2 is
dismissed as moot.
Herman second substitute preliminary motion 1 is dismissed, or alternatively denied.
Judgment is entered against Herman.
B. Findings of fact
The following findings of fact, as well as those contained elsewhere in this opinion are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007