Interference No. 103,345
shows that the inventor disclosed to others his 'complete
thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those
skilled in the art' to make the invention." Coleman, 754 F.2d
at 359, 224 USPQ at 862. However, "there is no final single
formula that must be followed in proving corroboration."
Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 266, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA
1969). Rather, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence is
determined by the "rule of reason." Berry, 412 F.2d at 266,
162 USPQ at 173; Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195, 26
USPQ2d 1031, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, a tribunal
must make a reasonable analysis of all of the pertinent
evidence to determine whether the inventor's testimony is
credible. Price, 988 F.2d at 1195, 26 USPQ at 1037. The
tribunal must also bear in mind the purpose of corroboration,
which is to prevent fraud, by providing independent
confirmation of the inventor's testimony. Berry, 412 F.2d at
267, 162 USPQ at 174; see also Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222,
1125, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981) ("evidence of
corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor
himself").
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007