Interference No. 103,146
to be proved, may raise an inference that the testimony of
such a witness would be unfavorable or at least would not
support the party’s case. See Borror v. Herz, 666 F.2d 569,
573-74, 213 USPQ 19, 23 (CCPA 1981); Linkow v. Linkow, 517
F.2d 1370, 1374, 186
USPQ 223, 226 (CCPA 1975); White v. Habenstein, 219 USPQ 1213,
1219 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1983). While this is not a controlling
factor in our decision, it is certainly not helpful to
Barker’s case. Id.
In short, the totality of evidence, as presented by
Barker, taken collectively, including the lack of any
corroborating witness, does not establish by a preponderance
of the evidence conception or reduction to practice before
Barker’s filing date of August 16, 1982. Therefore, we credit
Barker with a constructive reduction to practice as of August
16, 1982.
Elson’s Case for Priority
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007