Beverly Miller, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kimberly-clark Corporation, Defendant-appellee, 962 F.2d 17 (10th Cir. 1992)

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Ms. Miller appeals, pro se, the decision of the district court granting summary judgment against her pro se action. Indeed, the record reflects Defendant had applied for its patent eleven months prior to the time Ms. Miller conceived her idea.

We conclude Ms. Miller failed to meet her burden of proof. Under existing law a person is not entitled to a jury trial simply because they ask for it. Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate to the district court by producing facts that a disputed factual issue exists for a jury to try. This she failed to do.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.