Interference No. 103,272
non-inventor witnesses testified that such a resin was made, that its properties were
determined, and that based on the properties, the resin would be useful as a compact
disc. The exhibits and the testimony of the corroborating witnesses are consistent with Dr.
Heuschen’s testimony and demonstrate that the witnesses and the personnel reporting to
them and under their supervision were involved in an organized program of research.
Consequently, we are persuaded that the testimony of the Heuschen witnesses, Messrs.
Cooper, Ungetheim, Hinderliter and Hess, together with the exhibits, HX 1 to 5 and 8 to 13,
provide sufficient corroboration of a reduction to practice on behalf of the party Heuschen.
II
In rendering our opinion on the party Heuschen’s priority case, we have
relied upon certain exhibits, HX 1 to 5, and 8 to 11, of which HX 3 to 5 and 8 to 11 are the
subject of the party Okamoto’s motion to suppress. The motion urges that these exhibits
should be stricken because they are hearsay. The grounds for suppression are also
reiterated in the party Okamoto’s brief. The motion is denied insofar as it seeks to
suppress HX 3 to 5 and 8 to 11.
In evaluating the evidence, we cannot ignore the realities of the technical
operations in modern day research laboratories. Breuer v. DeMarinis, 558 F.2d 22, 29,
194 USPQ 308, 314 (CCPA 1977). In such a setting, the technician performing the
perfunctory aspects of the testing is not necessarily the most satisfactory witness. Rather,
the trained supervisor who is intimately aware of the everyday operation of the testing
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007