HERMAN et al. V. Herman - Page 25




                  Lastly, Herman argues that Barnes could not have been an inventor of the Barnes patent,          
            since Barnes was unfamiliar with the subject matter in the Barnes patent (Paper 29 at 20). The         
            argument is based on comments that Barnes made regarding an article written by Baboura.                
            According to Herman, the Bahoura article covers the same subject matter as that in the Barnes          
            patent. Barnes apparently reviewed the Baboura article and sent Baboura an e-mail (ff 5 1).            
            Herman argues that the comments made by Barnes in the e-mail demonstrate that Barnes thought           
            that the subject matter covered in the Baboura. article was novel. Herman argues that since            
            Barnes believed the subject matter in the Bahoura article to be novel, that Barnes then did not        
            know what was in the Barnes patent. There are several reasons why Herman's argument fails.             
                  First, the e-mail does not refer to terminology that is used in the counts. Barnes' remarks      
            are directed to using a beat frequency and a beat index of refraction. These terms are not used in     
            the 32 counts. Nor has Herman explained how the terminology of "beat frequency" and a "beat            
            index of refraction" relate to the subject matter of counts 1-32. Furthermore, Herman has made         
            no attempt to explain how the article is the same as the subject matter of the 32 counts. Even if      
            the Bahoura article and the Barnes patent cover the same subject matter, the comments made by          
            Barnes in the e-mail do not necessarily mean that Barnes was unaware of the content in the             
            Barnes patent. We do not know what Barnes' comments mean, nor will we speculate. Barnes                
            does not testify as to the content of the e-mail.                                                      
                  Since Herman has failed to provide a corroborated explanation, Herman second substitute          
            preliminary motion I is denied on this alternative ground.                                             
                  Since Herman has failed to.demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it is             
            entitled to the relief requested, we need not and have not considered Barnes' opposition or            

                                                       25                                                          







Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007