Baines patent.
5 1. Particularly, Herman alleges that the following comment made by Baines to Bahoura
in an e-mail communication is evidence that Baines was not aware of the contents of the
involved Baines patent:
Messaoud:
Could not find the attached file to this E-mail so an earlier version was read. In general,
your concept of using a beat frequency and beat index of refraction is a fresh way of
looking at the problem. This fresh approach brings new insights and should be an
interesting way of conceptualizing the process. (Herman Ex. 2010, page 2).
Evidence of conception of Counts 6, 7, 25 and 26
52. Herman testified that he alone conceived of the elements of counts 1-32 (Herman Ex.
2021, pages 7-48).
53. Herman testified that the elements of count 6 are met by the evidence as follows:
The subject matter of claim 6 was provided solely by me, Gregory S. Herman, to Gary
Fedorochko, the patent counsel who prepared the patent application for the '679 patent,
during the week of January 8-15, 1999, without any participation of, or without any
contribution by, Norman P. Bames.
Herman IDD (Herman Exhibit 2006):
Based upon the disclosure in the Herman IDD on Page 2, paragraph 5, lines 2-4, one of
ordinary skill in the art, without any undue experimentation, could ascertain that the first
and second electromagnetic waves described in the Herman IDD could both be
continuous-wave waves. However, Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and I conceived the
novel combination of Claim 6 which includes the recitations of Claim 1.
Herman NDI (Herman Exhibit 2012):
Section D: Page 7, paragraph 2. (Hennan Ex. 2021, page 15).
54. Herman testified that the elements of count 7 are met by the evidence as follows:
The subject matter of claim 7 was provided solely by me, Gregory S. Herman, to Gary
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007