Interference No. 103,029
"rule of reason" originally developed with respect to
reduction to practice has been extended to the corroboration
required for
proof of conception, the rule does not dispense with the
requirement of some evidence of independent corroboration.
See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 360, 224 USPQ at 862. As the CCPA
stated in Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936,
940 (CCPA 1981): "[the] adoption of the 'rule of reason' has
not altered the requirement that evidence of corroboration
must not depend solely on the inventor himself." There must
be evidence independent from the inventor corroborating the
conception.
Additionally, we acknowledge that there is no single
formula that must be followed in proving corroboration. An
evaluation of all pertinent evidence must be made so that a
sound determination of the credibility of the inventor's story
may be reached. Price, 988 F.2d at 1195, 26 USPQ2d at 1037.
Independent corroboration may consist of testimony of a
witness, other than the inventor, to the actual reduction to
practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007