PEREZ-SOLAER et al v. KHOKHAR et al v. KHOKHAR et al v. MAEDA et al - Page 12




          Interference No. 103,352                                                    

          involves an examination, analysis and evaluation of the record as           
          a whole so that a reasoned determination as to the credibility of           
          the inventor's story may be reached.  Berges v. Gottstein, 618              
          F.2d 771, 205, USPQ 691 (CCPA 1980); Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d               
          636, 146 USPQ 199 (CCPA 1965).  Although adoption of the "rule of           
          reason" has eased the requirement of corroboration with respect             
          to the quantum of evidence necessary to establish the inventor's            
          credibility, it has not altered the requirement that                        
          corroborative evidence must not depend solely on the inventor               
          himself and must be independent of information received from the            
          inventor.  Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 211 USPQ 936 (CCPA                
          1981); Mikus v. Wachtel, 542 F.2d 1157, 191 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1976).           
               Khokhar primarily relies upon its documentary exhibits,                
          particularly KX 3-6 and KX-8, for corroboration of a reduction to           
          practice.  With regard to a purported synthesis of at least one             
          compound within the scope of the count, KX 3-5, documents                   
          admittedly authored by Sheryl Doran, can be given little weight             
          as corroborative evidence.  While there is no question as to                
          authorship, there is no testimony of record other than that of              














Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007