expressly stated, while believing himself to be a sole inventor. In that regard, note that the joint
declaration in the involved Herman application states that willfully making a false statement is
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (ff 45). When he perceived that his project was at
risk of termination if he told the truth, Herman, by his own admission, made the conscious
decision to tell a lie. That gives us no confidence that in this proceeding where the potential gain
for telling a lie can be substantial, Herman is telling the truth. Moreover, the matter over which
Herman was willing to lie is the same as that matter now at issue, i.e., whether Herman is the
sole inventor of the involved Barnes patent. Accordingly, we do not credit the testimony of the
inventor Herman.
Without credible testimony from Herman, Herman has little left to support its motion.
Herman relies primarily upon Herman's testimony to prove conception of the invention and to
explain why the inventorship of the Barnes patent is incorrect. The remaining evidence
submitted by Herman does not fill the void. As an example, Herman relies on the testimony of
Herman alone to demonstrate conception of at least counts 25 and 26 (ffs 57 and 58). Herman
has directed us to no other evidence that would support a prior conception of at least counts 25
and 26, and without credible testimony from Herman, Herman's preliminary motion necessarily
fails.
Furthermore, many of the facts presented by Herman with respect to the explanation of
the change of inventorship are supported by Herman's testimony alone. For example, Herman
testified that Ms. Johnson told him that unless he added Barnes to the NDI, then he would not get
funding from NASA (ff 36). Aside from the fact that Herman's testimony is hearsay, apparently
not within an exception, without credible testimony from Herman there is no support for the
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007