Interference No. 103,197
adequate corroboration. See Kendall, 173 F.2d at 993, 81 USPQ
at 369 (testimony by inventor's wife and son that the inventor
from the time of conception worked continuously on development
of invention "was not specific as to dates and facts" and
therefore "does not constitute the kind of corroboratory
evidence required to establish appellant's diligence during
the critical period"). See also Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d
908, 920, 150 USPQ 634, 644 (CCPA 1966) (holding insufficient
testimony by inventor's wife that her husband continuously
worked on the invention at home from the
time he said he conceived the idea, citing Kendall, 173 F.2d
at 993, 81 USPQ at 369).
While Meyer confirms that during visits to the Morrison
home during the spring of 1988 he saw new test equipment and
supplies that Dr. Morrison was acquiring to test the invasive
fetal probe, he does not confirm that any probes were being138
built and tested at that time.
Thus, the evidence fails to show that Dr. Morrison or Dr.
Yue had made a decision prior to Buschmann's March 24, 1988,
benefit date to begin a reduction to practice of one of the
Meyer, MR 39-40, ¶ 12; MR 162, ¶ 22.138
- 87 -
Page: Previous 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007