LEVIEN V. KATAYAMA et al. - Page 23


                 Interference No. 103,587                                                                                                            

                 establish conception, a party must show possession of every feature recited in the count.                                           
                 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                                            
                          Even if the corroborating witness had indicated that the inventor, Raphael Levien,                                         
                 possessed every limitation of the count on November 8, 1987, his testimony would not have been                                      
                 persuasive with respect to prior conception.  The fact that the corroborating witness Jack Levien                                   
                 is closely related to the inventor goes to his credibility or weight of his testimony, but it does not                              
                 disqualify him or render him incompetent to testify as a corroborating witness.  However,                                           
                 relatives of a party are considered as being biased in the party’s favor, unless it appears that they                               
                 have an adverse interest.  III Rivise and Caesar, Interference Law and Practice, §§ 504, 551                                        
                 (Michie Co. 1947).  Here, Raphael’s father had no adverse interest and his testimony is                                             
                 considered as being biased in his son’s favor.  Furthermore, the invention is complex and                                           
                 Raphael’s father was not shown to be skilled in the particulars of the field of the involved                                        
                 invention such that he understood what was disclosed to him, and he testified to a large extent                                     
                 from memory long after the occurrences of which he spoke, approximately nine years after.                                           
                 McKnight v. Pohle, 22 App. D.C. 219, 1903 Comm’r 619, 105 Off. Gaz. 977 (Appeals D.C.                                               
                 1903); III Rivise and Caesar, Interference Law and Practice § 552 (Michie Co. 1947).  No                                            
                 contemporaneous document was produced by the junior party to establish what, if anything, was                                       
                 communicated to the corroborator by the inventor on November 8, 1987.                                                               
                          Alone, the fact that the sole corroborating witness is the inventor’s father does not defeat                               
                 Levien’s case for priority and it is considered that such testimony under other circumstances                                       
                 could establish conception.  However, we are of the opinion that when all of the above                                              
                 weaknesses of the corroborator’s testimony are considered together, his testimony as a whole is                                     
                 insufficient to establish that Raphael Levien disclosed to him even the incomplete conception                                       



                                                                         23                                                                          



Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007