§

Roberge V. Staples

07975422 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 1998)
Roberge V. Staples

30 Cited authorities

  1. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 317 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  2. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 95 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

  3. Scott v. Finney

    34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 51 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Addressing reduction to practice in the priority context

  4. Hahn v. Wong

    892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Corroborating evidence must be "independent of information received from the inventor"

  5. Paulik v. Rizkalla

    760 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that the inference of suppression or concealment from a four-year delay between reduction to practice and the filing of a patent application was overcome by the first inventor's resumption of activity before the second inventor's date of conception

  6. Holmwood v. Sugavanam

    948 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding prior reduction to practice in the United States based on domestic testing of a foreign fungicide, proof of which was established through oral testimony and test results

  7. Reese v. Hurst

    661 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 35 times
    In Reese v. Hurst, 211 USPQ 936, 941, 943 (CCPA 1981), our predecessor court affirmed a Board decision that a reduction to practice had occurred on the date that test results were obtained instead of on the later date when the results were conveyed to the inventor; however, the court did not explain this aspect of its decision.

  8. Lutzker v. Plet

    843 F.2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 17 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Lutzker we held a long delay between a prior inventor's first reduction to practice and subsequent filing of a patent application may be excused if the inventor worked during that period to improve or perfect the invention disclosed in the patent application, Lutzker, 843 F.2d at 1367, accord Young, 489 F.2d at 1281, but if the inventor's activities during that period were directed only to commercialization and were not "reflected in his patent application," they could not be excused, Lutzker 843 F.2d at 1368, accord Young, 489 F.2d at 1281-82.

  9. Davis v. Reddy

    620 F.2d 885 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 22 times

    Appeal No. 80-506. May 15, 1980. Rehearing Denied July 10, 1980. James B. Blanchard, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record for appellants; Maurice J. Jones, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz., of counsel. Charles W. Bradley, New York City, attorney of record for appellee; Paul J. Ethington, Reising, Ethington, Barnard, Perry Brooks, Southfield, Mich., Russel C. Wells, The Bendix Corp., Southfield, Mich., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge

  10. Young v. Dworkin

    489 F.2d 1277 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9004. January 17, 1974. Rehearing Denied February 14, 1974. Paul Maleson, Maleson, Kimmelman Ratner, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant. Howard S. Dworkin, pro se. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This is an appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences which awarded priority to the senior party-appellee on the grounds that the junior party-appellant had suppressed

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 104 - Repealed

    35 U.S.C. § 104   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses

    35 U.S.C. § 104 Pub. L. 112-29, §3(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 287 Section, act July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 798; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 94-131, §6, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 691; Pub. L. 98-622, title IV, §403(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3392; Pub. L. 103-182, title III, §331, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2113; Pub. L. 103-465, title V, §531(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4982; Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat

  13. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  14. Section 1.601 - Filing of papers in supplemental examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.601   Cited 40 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Defining the term "interference"