Interference No. 102,572
1981); Mikus. Wachtel , 542 F.2d 1157, 1159, 191 USPQ 571, 573 (CCPA 1976). Thus
where, as here, the process is carried out by the inventors, there must be corroborated
evidence that all the limitations as to materials, properties, steps and results required by
the count were present in the work performed. Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92, 101, 144
USPQ 661, 669 (CCPA 1965) ; Vandenberg v. Reynolds, 268 F.2d 744, 747, 122 USPQ
381, 383 (CCPA 1959).
VIII.
OPINION ON PRIORITY
We find that based on the record before us, Cabilly et al. have not proved, by a
preponderance of evidence, an actual reduction to practice of the invention in issue prior to
March 25, 1983.
A. Exhibits
As noted previously, Boss et al. have challenged the Cabilly et al. exhibits on the
basis of lack of authentication as to author, date, and content.
Authentication is defined as “genuineness” and is said to be established, when it is
proved to be the thing it is supposed or represented to be. Rivise & Caesar, 1940, Vol IV,
§563, page 2418; see also FRE 901. An exhibit may be authenticated by oral testimony
of a witness but not by the uncorroborated testimony of the party on whose behalf it is
20
offered in evidence. Hence, a witness must properly identify the exhibit as to what it is
20Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not
required for self-authenticating evidence. See FRE 902.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007