Interference No. 105,125
Chaffee v. Skulnick
conception of the subject matter of the count. The same deficiencies of the testimony from
Kenneth R. Gill, Jr. and Timothy J. King in the context of corroborating an actual reduction to
practice are also deficiencies with respect to corroboration of the invention's conception. The e
mail correspondences submitted by the junior party have been examined but they do not help to
remedy the plethora of deficiencies discussed thus far. In particular, the e-mail correspondences
do not reveal the ornamental content of any subject design discussed in the communications.
Also, it is not altogether clear who is sending e-mail messages to whom, because the
submission contains what appears to be a series of forwarded messages without a continuous
chain connecting the first to the last and because some individuals are identified only by a
screen-name. It is also not clear who all the individuals are that are listed as a sender or an
addressee or are referred to in the body of the messages and what their relationships are relative
to either Thomas J. Chaffee or Steve Skulnick. Simply put, the context of the messages are not
explained by the junior party. It is not the role of the board to put together the evidence like
pieces of ajig-saw puzzle in favor of one party or another. It is incumbent upon the junior party
to explain its evidence. Note further that the dates of the e-mail messages have all been redacted
orblackedout. The e-mail messages are of minimal help to the junior party's case.
Regarding the alleged shipping of prototypes from the junior party to the senior party,
none of the U.S. Express Mail shipping forms submitted by the junior party is legible. Innoneof
the three shipping forms submitted can any of the following information be read: Who is sending
the shipment, who is the addressee, the date of the shipment, and the content of the shipment.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007