Barnes was involved in some way. According to Herman, Barries provided Herman with well
known Sellincier coefficients that Herman used in calculations of the invention (ff 30). Herman
argues that Bames' contribution was insignificant, citing to Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344,
1351, 47 USPQ2d 1657, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(a purported inventor must show that he made a
contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is
measured against the dimension of the full invention, and did more than merely explain to the
real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art).
Herman does not explain in its brief, nor is it apparent from the evidence that Herman
directs us to, what Sellmeier coefficients are, why such coefficients are well known, how these
coefficients fit within the context of each count, or why providing the coefficients would be an
insignificant contribution towards conception. It is not enough that Herman himself testifies that
the coefficients are well known, without directing us to further evidence to corroborate the
assertion.
Herman also relies on the testimony of Halarna in support of its assertion that Herman
alone conceived of the 32 counts. Although Halama does testify that Herman disclosed
equations and graphs that are the same as those disclosed on the IDD and NDI prior to the critical
date (ffs 24-26), such evidence fails to demonstrate that: (1) Barries was not a co-inventor of any
of the 32 counts, or that (2) the graphs and equations on the IDD and the NDI demonstrate a prior
conception of every count. As stated above, with respect to count 25, for example, Herman even
acknowledges that the NDI and IDD fail to describe the elements of count 25. For these reasons,
Halarna, Herman's sole corroborating witness, fails to provide corroborating evidence that
Herman alone conceived of all of counts 1-32.
24
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007