HERMAN et al. V. Herman - Page 20




            drafting the Barnes patent application, Fedorochko (ff 57). Fedorochko does not testify for            
            Herman. Herman fails to direct us to corroborating evidence to show that the subject matter of         
            count 25 was conceived solely by Herman during the week of 8-15 January 1999, and thus                 
            conceived prior to the critical date.                                                                  
                  Furthermore, Herman incorrectly uses an obviousness standard, to demonstrate conception          
            of count 25. Cf. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 53 USPQ2d 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Herman                
            testified that, by itself, the technique of resonant enhancement, e.g., the technique claimed in       
            count 25, is state-of-the-art and refers to the Herman IDD and Herman NDI as "skill in the art"        
            (ff 57). Herman, in his declaration, argues that:'                                                     
                         Although, by itself, the technique of Resonant Enhancement is an established              
                  state-of-the-art, that the application of the technique to Claim 24, which in turn is            
                  dependent on the independent Claim 19, is novel. Therefore, Claim 25 depends from                
                  Claim 24 and 19, and I conceived of the novel combination of Claim 25, which includes            
                  the recitations of Claims 24 and 19 (Herman Ex. 2021, page 41).                                  
                  We understand the argument to mean that since the novel invention in the form of                 
            independent claim 19 was solely conceived by Herman, any claim depending from the                      
            independent claim and obvious in view of the independent claim, is necessarily solely                  
            attributable to Herman'. The argument is rejected.                                                     
                  fn this interference, each and every count is a separate invention with respect to proofs        
            demonstrating sole inventorship. That the elements of count 25 are well known does not mean            
            that the elements were known to Herman or that he conceived of the invention of count 25.              

                  ' As already discussed, Herman's incorporation of arguments from the Herman                      
            declaration into the brief is unacceptable. Nonetheless, we address the merits of the argument.        
                  I During oral argument, counsel for Herman agreed to our interpretation of the argument          
            advanced by Herman in his declaration.                                                                 
                                                       20                                                          







Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007