Interference No. 102,408
26 USPQ2d at 1036; see also Mikus, 542 F.2d at 1153, 191 USPQ
at 573 (“objective sought in requiring independent
corroboration of reduction to practice of a chemical
composition is to insure that the inventor actually prepared
the composition”). Manifestly, there must be some evidence
independent from the inventor which corroborates the actual
reduction to practice. See Reese,
661 F.2d at 1228, 211 USPQ at 942 ("adoption of the 'rule of
reason' has not altered the requirement that evidence of
corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor
himself"). Junior party Child has failed to present such
evidence.
Junior party Child offers the declarations of non-
inventors John C. James, Jeffrey B. Medwid, Franz Scheidl,
Frederick Durr, Stanley A. Lang and Bruce Heiser as
independent corroboration. However, the testimony therein25
25For the first time in the reply brief, Child also relies
on the declaration of Kimberly Miner to establish independent
corroboration (CRB4). Arguments presented for the first time
in a reply brief will not be considered. See Photis v.
Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984) (matters
not raised in the brief are ordinarily regarded as abandoned).
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007