Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
invention, as it is therefore to be applied in practice." Kridl
v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1449, 41 USPQ2d 1686, 1689 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Conception must include every
feature or limitation of the claimed invention. Id. Moreover,
"[c]onception must be proved by corroborating evidence . . . a
reasonable analysis of all the pertinent evidence to determine
whether the inventor's testimony is credible. The tribunal must
also keep in mind the purpose of corroboration, which is to
prevent fraud, by providing independent confirmation of the
inventor's testimony.") Id. at 1449–50, 41 USPQ2d at 1689;
(citations omitted.) Nonetheless, the sufficiency of
corroborative evidence must be judged by the 'rule of reason,'
under which the tribunal must consider and analyze all pertinent
evidence to determine whether the inventor's testimony is
credible. Id. As the Federal Circuit has emphasized, "Because
conception is a mental act, evidence of conception must
ultimately address whether the inventor formed 'the definite and
permanent idea of the complete and operative invention' in his or
her mind." In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1325, 64 USPQ2d 1901,
1907 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the present case, with respect to count 4, junior party
Stice seeks to show that it was the first to conceive and that it
acted diligently to reduce its invention to practice from a time
-19-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007