Interference No. 102,408
Manifestly, a reduction to practice of the subject matter
of a count must be independently corroborated. Mikus v.
Wachtel, 542 F.2d 1157, 1159, 191 USPQ 571, 573 (CCPA 1976);
see also Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1228, 211 USPQ 936,
940 (CCPA 1981) (“adoption of the ‘rule of reason’ has
not altered the requirement that evidence of corroboration
must not depend solely on the inventor himself”).
According to junior party Child, it has proven a
corroborated reduction to practice of a compound within the
scope of the count in the United States prior to September 3,
1984, Kolar's effective filing date (CB4). In addition to the
declarations of inventors Ralph G. Child and Yang I. Lin, 5 6
junior party relies on the declaration testimony of John C.
5Declaration of Ralph G. Child dated September 29, 1992
(CR354-64).
6Declaration of Yang I. Lin dated September 28, 1992
(CR54-57).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007