Interference No. 105,125
Chaffee v. Skulnick
the top, bottom, rear, and side views of the subject boat fender being shown. Here, the testimony
of Messrs. Gill and King do not have sufficient nexus to a boat fender having all the ornamental
design features of the count. Furthermore, the testimony of both Kenneth R. Gill, Jr. and
Timothy J. King is ambiguous as to whether they had witnessed a finished article or a completed
design as shown in the photographs. Both stated: "On various dates prior to February 27, 2001, 1
personally witnessed Mr. Thomas Chaffee as he designed and constructed the prototype boat
fenders shown in the attached photographs (attached as Exhibit A)." The phrase "as he. . . "
reasonably suggests that there was a work in progress and it is not reasonably clear whether the
witnesses had seen any completed design or finished article. It is not reasonably clear whether
the witnesses had seen the design from all top, bottom, front, rear, and each lateral view since the
photographs do not show all those views.
To the extent that junior party Thomas J. Chaffee is also asserting entitlement to
judgment based on alleged derivation of the invention by the senior party, neither conception of
the subject matter of the count by the party nor communication of the subject matter of the count
from the junior party to the senior party has been shown. In order to establish conception, a party
must show possession of every feature recited in the count, and that every limitation of the count
must have been known to the inventor at the time of the alleged conception. Hitzeman, 243 F.3d
at 1354, 58 USPQ2d at 1167; Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). The same deficiencies of junior party's submitted photographs with respect to
demonstrating an actual reduction to practice are also deficiencies with respect to demonstrating
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007