Interference No. 103,169
the facts of the particular case involved. Blicke, 241 F.2d at 720-721, 112 USPQ at 475
(CCPA 1957). The character of testing varies with the character of invention and the
problem it solves. Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1061-1062, 32 USPQ2d 1115, 1118
(Fed. Cir. 1994). When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence for reduction to practice a
?reasonableness” standard is applied. Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238,
20 USPQ2d 1712, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Lastly, there must be an appreciation of the
existence of an embodiment of the invention and the operability of the embodiment. Estee
Lauder v. L’Oreal, 129 F.3d 588, 594-595, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1615 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
Silvestri v. Grant, 496 F.2d 593, 597, 181 USPQ 706, 708 (CCPA 1974), cert denied, 420
U.S. 928 (1975); Heard v. Burton, 333 F.2d 239, 243, 142 USPQ 97, 100 (CCPA 1964).
See also Chisum on Patents §10.06[2] (1995).
The reduction to practice must be corroborated in point in time. An inventor must
provide independent corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and
documents. Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032, 13 USPQ2d at 1317; Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d
611, 613, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Such evidence ?may consist of testimony
of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual reduction to practice or it may consist of
evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of information received
from the inventor” [emphasis added]. Hahn, 892 F.2d at
1032-33, 13 USPQ at 1317; Reese, 661 F.2d at 1225, 211 USPQ at 940. The purpose
of the rule requiring corroboration is to prevent fraud. Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d
32
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007