1. 35 USC § 102(f) “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – * * * (f) He did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented

2. “Campbell” Invention

3. Flexible Feed Track

4. Zimmerman’s belt buckle

5. Two Main 102(f) Scenarios “Derivation” (invention theft) a la Campbell –Requirements: (1) Conception by Person A; (2) communication (enabling) to person B Inventorship rejections and disputes – PTO and litigation 35 USC § 256 –Misjoinder (adding non-inventor to patent) –Non-joinder (omitting inventor from patent)

6. Typical derivation scenario ROBINSON LABS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. Sept. 30, 2003 2003 WL 22272122 (D.Minn.)

7. Robinson Labs 1. A multi-dimensional camouflaged garment, the garment serving to camouflage a wearer thereof by presenting an external appearance to an observer that tends to be indistinguishable from the environmental feature against which the wearer is observed, comprising: a garment external surface, being viewable by an observer and having a first portion and a second potion; the first portion of the garment external surface being formed of a substantially three dimensional material; and the second portion of the garment external surface being formed of a substantially two dimensional material.

8. the first portion of the garment external surface being formed of a substantially three dimensional material; and the second portion of the garment external surface being formed of a substantially two dimensional material.

9. Robinson Here, the crux of this analysis is whether the bow hunters first conceived of the invention claimed by the '835 Patent. The bow hunters put forth the idea of cutting off the leaves so as to remove the safety hazard. This was a specific settled idea addressing a solution to the problem at hand. Anyone with a pair of shears could reduce the invention to practice. The Court concludes that there is no material question of fact as to whether the bow hunters had conceived of an invention.