Interference No. 103,272
manufacture, and that the priority date as to the resin is based on inadmissible hearsay.
These arguments concern whether there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the inventor’s
testimony and whether actual testing of the para-cumyl phenol endcapped polycarbonate
resin is necessary. For the reasons stated below, these arguments are not considered
well taken.
I
With respect to the corroboration of the inventor’s testimony, the purpose of
the rule of corroboration is to prevent fraud and to establish that the inventor actually
produced and knew the invention would work by proof that could not have been fabricated
or falsified. Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 266-67, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA 1969)
and Gianladis v. Kass, 324 F.2d 322, 325, 139 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1963). The notion
that each individual act in an actual reduction to practice must be proved in detail by an
unbroken chain of corroboration has been rejected. Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d 636, 640,
146 USPQ 199, 202 (CCPA 1965). Consequently, the proper approach, i.e., the rule of
reason, involves a reasoned examination, analysis and evaluation of all the pertinent
evidence bearing on the question to the end that a reasoned determination as to the
credibility of the inventor's story may be reached. Mann v. Werner, Id.; Berges v. Gottstein,
618 F.2d 771, 774, 205 USPQ 691, 695 (CCPA 1980).
Dr. Heuschen, one of the inventors, testified that he requested that a para-
cumyl phenol endcapped polycarbonate resin within the scope of the count be made. The
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007