Interference No. 103,272
laboratory, who is responsible for the results and who works closely with his subordinates,
is the one who can be relied upon for the most persuasive evidence. Holmwood v.
Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1239, 20 USPQ2d 1712, 1714-15 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d at 640, 146 USPQ at 202.
Bearing in mind the foregoing principle, we agree with the party Heuschen
that a supervisor to whom a laboratory assistant reports and for whom the assistant runs
pertinent tests is the best witness to testify concerning an exhibit, especially where that
supervisor is also the custodian of the record. The exhibits, HX 3 and 8 to 11, are such
records. The supervisor responsible for each exhibit testified that the work reported on
each exhibit was performed at his direction by his subordinate and that the supervisor is
the custodian of the pertinent record. Under these circumstances, we perceive of no
reason why we cannot consider these exhibits and accord them weight, especially where
the testimony surrounding each exhibit is credible and consistent with the inventor’s story.
The party Okamoto has not shown otherwise.
HX 5 concerns a tabulation of results of the testing, as evidenced by HX 3
and 8 to 13; HX 4 is an exhibit prepared by Dr. Cooper using the data of HX 5.
Dr. Cooper relied upon HX 4 to conclude that para-cumyl phenol endcapped
polycarbonate would be as good as, or better than, the para-tertiary butyl phenol
endcapped polycarbonate as a compact disc. Under the rule of reason, a senior
researcher may rely upon and use internal company test records, which resulted from tests
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007