Interference No. 103,146
that corroborative evidence must not depend solely on the
inventor and must be independent of information received from
the inventor. See Reese, 661 F.2d at 1225, 211 USPQ at 940;
Mikus v. Wachtel, 542 F.2d 1157, 1161-62, 191 USPQ 571, 575
(CCPA 1976). There is no language in the Price decision that
would lead one to believe than the long-standing requirement
for corroborative evidence, i.e., information independent from
the inventor, had been altered. Accord Finnigan v. ITC, Case
98-1411 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 1999).
In this instance, the relied upon exhibits are all
work products of the inventor and are all “self-serving” in
this regard. They do not reflect the work of any other
witness, and no one other than the inventor was called to
testify as to the inventor’s inventive activities.
Furthermore, we note from the interference record that Larry
Tolman, a name that appears on BX-118, was noticed as a
witness, but his deposition was canceled. The unexplained
failure to call a person such as Tolman, who apparently has
direct knowledge of the facts sought
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007