Alpert v. Slatin
Decision Date | 25 July 1962 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6766. |
Citation | 305 F.2d 891,134 USPQ 296 |
Parties | Marshall B. ALPERT, Appellant, v. Harvey L. SLATIN, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Bartholomew A. Diggins, Donald R. Dunner, Robert E. LeBlanc, Diggins & LeBlanc, Washington, D. C. (John B. Henrich, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Norman N. Holland, New York City (George C. Bower, Wilmington, Del., and William T. Estabrook, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*
Despite the voluminous record and briefs which we have been here required to consider, the single comparatively simple issue on this appeal is that of priority of invention of a process for producing titanium metal which is defined in the single count as follows:
The Board of Patent Interferences after a thorough consideration of the extensive record, and what appears to have been a careful and judicious consideration of the adversary contentions, awarded priority to the senior party, Slatin.1 The junior party Alpert2 has appealed this decision.
We agree with the Board of Patent Interferences that the decision on the priority issue is essentially a factual determination as to which the junior party Alpert has the burden of proof. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we agree with the Board that Alpert did not sustain the burden of proof required of a junior party so that on the present record the senior party Slatin is entitled to the award of priority.
The history of the present interference is both lengthy and complex. Insofar as this history has significance here, the count in issue originated as allowed claim 21 in the Slatin application and was substituted in the interference when the examiner granted Alpert's motion to amend by adding it after finding the original count to be unpatentable. No question is present here as to the right of either party to make this count.3
The party Slatin as the senior party is entitled to prevail unless the junior party Alpert establishes his right to priority by a preponderance of the evidence. Levy v. Gould, 87 F.2d 524, 24 CCPA 910; and Archer v. Papa, 265 F.2d 954, 46 CCPA 835.
It is axiomatic that if the junior party is to prevail, the right to do so must be established by proofs which show priority of the precise invention defined by the count. In thus testing Alpert's case we are influenced, as was the board, by Alpert's interpretation of the count in his brief before the board. As stated by the board:
Thus to meet the count, the evidence on behalf of Alpert must establish his right to a date of invention prior to August 10, 1949, Slatin's filing date, upon his invention of a process in which titanium metal was deposited in crystalline aggregates on the cathode of an electrolytic cell from an electrolyte which consists of titanium dichloride or titanium trichloride dissolved in a solvent molten bath compound of materials of the group consisting of alkaline metal chlorides and alkaline-earth chlorides and mixtures thereof.
To establish his case Alpert offered the testimony of seven witnesses, including Alpert, and Schultz and Sullivan, who were originally named as co-inventors, and submitted a number of documentary exhibits.
Alpert asserts that this evidence established conception of the invention of the count on or about December 1, 1948, relying largely on the proofs of a suggestion submitted by him to Messrs. Sullivan and Jacobsen on December 15, 1948 and introduced in evidence as Exhibit 4.4 That exhibit is described by the board as suggesting "adoption of a program of exploration of the possibility of depositing titanium by some electrolytic procedure from a titanium salt of lower valence than quadrivalent."
After a careful review of this evidence we agree with the board's opinion that:
Alpert's evidence shows that National Lead Company adopted the program proposed in the December 1948 suggestion (Exhibit 4) and that Alpert and Schultz worked on the program, making reports on their progress to their supervisor, Sullivan. Those reports were also transmitted to Sullivan's immediate supervisor, Jacobsen, and Jacobsen's immediate supervisor, Alessandroni.
From these reports and the testimony Alpert established that four specific runs in a series directed to the production of titanium metal by electrolysis were made prior to August 10, 1949. These runs are relied on by Alpert as constituting actual reduction to practice of the invention defined in the count prior to Slatin's filing date. The dates of these runs are March 25, 1949; about May 23, 1949; the week of June 13, 1949; and the week preceding July 18, 1949.
The first alleged reduction to practice is the fourth run in the series, made on March 25, 1949 and reported in Alpert Exhibit 11. Concerning the product of that run, Schultz testified:
Emphasis added.
Examination of the two fractions by x-ray diffraction was made by the witness North. His report on the fraction adhering to the cathode was as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...corroboration because, like notebooks, these are merely self-serving declarations made by the inventors. Alpert v. Slatin, 49 CCPA 1343, 305 F.2d 891, 895-96 (1962). 16. Physical samples as well as analytic tests performed thereon do not provide independent corroboration unless an independe......
-
NAT. RESEARCH DEVEL. CORP. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
...it is not at all clear that documents such as DX-M come within the scope of the term "business records". See, Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 49 C.C.P.A. 1343 (1962) (§ 1732 not applicable to progress reports of scientific research and tests). Finally, basic elements of the Federal Rules of......
-
Cleeton v. Hewlett-Packard Company
...argument pressed by the plaintiffs, that Dr. Cleeton's logbooks are admissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1732. See Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 895, 49 C.C.P.A. 1343 (1962), holding an inventor's work and progress reports to his superiors inadmissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1732. See also Teter v. Ke......
-
Standard Oil Company v. Montedison
...Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Plaintiff Standard Oil Company (Indiana) With Respect to Priority, I., 4.04. 339 305 F.2d 891, 49 CCPA 1343 (1962). 340 Id., 305 F.2d p. 341 Dickinson v. Swinehart, 49 App.D.C. 222, 223, 263 F. 474, 475 (D.C.Cir.1920). 342 Proposed Findings of Fact......
-
Private sector business records
...Assurance Co ., 584 F.2d 1306 (3d Cir. 1978). 145 Hahn v. Sterling Drug, Inc ., 805 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1986). 146 Alpert v. Slatin , 305 F.2d 891 (C.C.P.A. 1962). 147 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 148 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...Assurance Co ., 584 F.2d 1306 (3d Cir. 1978). 130 Hahn v. Sterling Drug, Inc ., 805 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1986). 131 Alpert v. Slatin , 305 F.2d 891 (C.C.P.A. 1962). 132 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 133 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...Assurance Co ., 584 F.2d 1306 (3d Cir. 1978). 141 Hahn v. Sterling Drug, Inc ., 805 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1986). 142 Alpert v. Slatin , 305 F.2d 891 (C.C.P.A. 1962). 143 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 144 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...Assurance Co ., 584 F.2d 1306 (3d Cir. 1978). 130 Hahn v. Sterling Drug, Inc ., 805 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1986). 131 Alpert v. Slatin , 305 F.2d 891 (C.C.P.A. 1962). 132 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 22-37 Private Sector Business Records §22.428 the federal sphere, the Frye test conflicted w......