Interference No. 103,169
261, 267, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA 1969). A rule of reason applies to determine
whether the inventor’s testimony has been sufficiently corroborated. Price v. Symsek, 988
F.2d at 1192, 26 USPQ2d at 1036-37. The ?rule of reason” involves an examination,
analysis and evaluation of the record as a whole so that a reasoned determination as to
the credibility of the inventor’s story may be reached. Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771,
776, 205 USPQ 691, 695 (CCPA 1980); Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d 636, 640, 146 USPQ
199, 202 (CCPA 1965). There is no single formula that must be followed in providing
corroboration. Whether an actual reduction to practice has been corroborated must be
decided on the facts of each particular case. Berges, 618 F.2d at 776, 205 USPQ at 695.
Nevertheless, adoption of the ?rule of reason” has not dispensed with the requirement that
corroborative evidence must not depend solely from the inventor himself but must be
independent of information received from the inventor. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 22
USPQ at 862; Reese, 661 F.2d at 1225, 211 USPQ at 940; Mikus v. 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 the materials, the properties, the steps and the 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).
In order to establish a reduction to practice, Chenevey et al. rely upon
33
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007