Interference No. 103,435
The Junior party, although alleging derivation by the
Senior party, has not specifically contested the Senior
party’s conception and reduction to practice date in their
brief.
It is our view that the evidence of conception and
reduction to practice is sufficient to establish a date of
conception and reduction to practice for the Senior party of
August 1987.
The Junior Party’s Conception
Christ being the Junior party has the burden of proving
prior inventorship by a preponderance of the evidence.
Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647, 651, 190 USPQ 117, 120 (CCPA
1976). In reviewing the record we have kept in mind that the
testimony of an inventor is not by itself effective to prove
conception and reduction to practice in the absence of
corroboration. The purpose of the rule requiring
corroboration is to prevent fraud and to establish by proof
that is unlikely to have been fabricated or falsified, that
the inventor successfully reduced his invention to practice.
Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 267, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007