Interference No. 102,668
concerning the construction of a test prototype for
a new transducer design. Exhibits "A", "B", and "D"
in the in the §1.608(b) Declaration filed by George
H. Cavanagh III, dated 9/19/90 show the prototype
transducer design that Mr. Cavanagh had brought to
my attention during August of 1988.
3[.] I recall that the prototype as shown in
the photographs marked Exhibit "D" had two TR317
stacks of transducers fastened together with gasket
eliminator. This is shown in [the] left-hand
photograph in Exhibit "D" as a "red line" towards
the bottom of the transducer stack. The original
transducer stack shown in the photograph is still at
the Hazeltine facility in Braintree.
4. I recall that Mr. Cavanagh had asked for my
advice concerning boot attachment for his device. I
had recommended the use of Chemlok 304. The right
photograph in Exhibit "D" is a picture of Mr.
Cavanagh's prototype with the rubber boot in place
using Chemlok 304 as I suggested.
The testimony of Packard and Pelrin convinces us
that the device that Packard saw tested in August 1988 is the
device depicted in Cavanagh Exhibits A, B, and D and that the
results of those tests appear in Exhibit C. McMahon faults
the testimony of these witnesses as not corroborated by
another witness (Br. at 20). This criticism is unfounded
because the testimony of a witness who is not an inventor need
not be corroborated. Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236,
1239, 20 USPQ2d 1712, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(citing Borror v.
Herz, 666 F.2d 569, 573, 213 USPQ 19, 22 (CCPA 1981)).
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007