Interference No. 103,830
speed, e.g., 55 miles per hour, and there is no evidence that the junior party stopped a vehicle
traveling at a high speed any time prior to its test in November 1993.
The following other deficiencies exist with respect to individual tests.
With respect to the test made in December 1992, there is simply no independent
corroboration of the test made by Pacholok. George William Wolf IV, who the inventor alleges
witnessed the test, was not called by the junior party as a witness,4 and the only corroborating
witnesses, R. Winston Slater and Mark Elliott, did not witness this test. There is no independent
evidence that the parts evidenced by the inventor’s receipts identified as Exhibit pages B1-B3
were used in the alleged testing . In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an
inventor’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. Cooper v. Goldfarb,
154 F.3d at 1321, 47 USPQ2d at 1896.5
Not only is the above December test uncorroborated, but at paragraph 5 of his testimony,
the inventor testified that he was not satisfied with the test results. There must be recognition
and appreciation that the tests were successful for reduction to practice to occur. Cooper v.
Goldfarb, 154 F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ at 1903.
As to the tests made in March 1993, Mark Elliott, the sole corroborator who witnessed
the test, indicated that the vehicles tested were not moving. According to the testimony of the
inventor, the pulser was connected to the engine and body of the vehicle with alligator clips,
which clips could be expected to provide a secure, low impedance connection between the pulser
4 Paragraph 75 of the inventor’s testimony indicates that Wolf was available as a witness for the junior party.
5 At the first paragraph of page 11 of its brief, the junior party in effect admits that it has not met the requirement of
corroborated testimony with respect to this test.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007