Interference No. 103,669
insufficient to prove conception--some form of corroboration
must be shown. See Price, 988 F.2d at 1194, 26 USPQ2d at
1036. While the "rule of reason" originally developed with
respect to reduction to practice has been extended to the
corroboration required for proof of conception, the rule does
not dispense with the requirement of some evidence of
independent corroboration. See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 360, 224
USPQ at 862. As the CCPA stated in Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d
1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981): "adoption of the
'rule of reason' has not altered the requirement that evidence
of corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor
himself.” There must be evidence independent from the
inventor corroborating the conception. Additionally,
we acknowledge that there is no single formula that must be
followed in proving corroboration. An evaluation of all
pertinent evidence must be made so that a sound determination
of the credibility of the inventor's story may be reached.
Price, 988 F.2d at 1195, 26 USPQ2d 1037. Independent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007