III. Discussion
A rebuttable presumption exists that the inventors made their invention in the
chronological order of their effective filing dates. The burden of proof shall be upon the party
that contends otherwise. 37 CFR § 1.657(a). Alton argues that it conceived the invention prior
to its accorded benefit date (Paper 1 at 3). Thus, Alton has the burden of proof.
Conception is the formation in the inventor’s mind of a definite and permanent idea of
the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice. Cooper v.
Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "An idea is definite
and permanent when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem
at hand, not just a general goal or research plan he hopes to pursue." Burroughs Wellcome Co. v.
Barr Lab., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The conception
must show possession of every limitation of the count and must be sufficient to enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without extensive experimentation. Sewall v.
Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
An inventor’s testimony used to establish conception must be corroborated by
independent evidence. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab., Inc., 40 F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d
at 1919. All pertinent evidence must be evaluated when determining the credibility of an
inventor’s testimony. For example, under a “rule of reason” analysis, circumstantial evidence of
an independent nature may satisfy the corroboration requirement. Reese v. Hurst v.
Wiewiorowski, 661 F.2d 1222, 1230 , 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981); Cooper v. Goldfarb,
154 F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ2d at 1903. “However, the ‘rule of reason’ does not dispense with
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007