Interference No. 103,345
the threshold member and a second gear mounted in driving
relationship with the first gear, the second gear being
disposed to provide means for enabling manual rotation
thereof" is unpersuasive because gears are not shown and
Staples has not explained why they are inherent. The drawing
leaves open the possibility that the knob controls rotation of
the threaded member in some other way, such as by being
releasably mounted on the end of the threaded member in such a
way that the knob and threaded member rotate together.
Staples contends that Jeffrey Staples's testimony
and Exhibit I have adequate corroboration when considered
under the "rule of reason" standard of Coleman, 754 F.2d at
360, 224 USPQ at 862 (Br. at 11). However, as explained in
Reese, 661 F.2d at 1225, 211 USPQ at 940, "the adoption of the
"rule of reason" has not altered the requirement that evidence
of corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor
himself. . . . Independent corroboration may consist of
testimony of a witness, other than the inventor, to the actual
reduction to practice or it may consist of surrounding facts
and circumstances independent of information received from the
inventor." Staples has not identified any surrounding facts
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007