Interference No. 102,572
1989); Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 613, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Such
evidence “may consist of testimony of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual
reduction to practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances
independent of information received from the inventor” (our emphasis). Hahn, 892 F.2d at
1032-33, 13 USPQ2d at 1317; Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936,
940 (CCPA 1981) . The purpose of the rule requiring corroboration is to prevent fraud.
Berry v Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 267, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA 1969). A rule of reason
applies to determine whether the inventor's testimony has been sufficiently corroborated.
Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1192, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1036-1037 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The “rule of reason” involves an examination, analysis and evaluation of the record as a
whole to the end that a reasoned determination as to the credibility of the inventor’s story
may be reached. Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 776, 205 USPQ 691, 695 (CCPA
1980); Mann v. Werner , 347 F.2d 636, 640, 146 USPQ 199, 202 (CCPA 1965). There
is no single formula that must be followed in proving corroboration. Whether an actual
reduction to practice has been corroborated must be decided on the facts of each
particular case. Berges, 618 F.2d at 776, 205 USPQ at 695. Nonetheless, adoption of
the “rule of reason” has not dispensed with the requirement that corroborative evidence
must not depend solely from the inventor himself but must be independent of information
received from the inventor. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862
(Fed. Cir. 1985); Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007