Interference No. 103,435
1969). The evidence necessary for corroboration is determined
by the rule of reason which involves an examination, analysis
and evaluation of the record as a whole to the end that a
reasoned determination as to the credibility of the inventor’s
story may be reached. Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 776,
205 USPQ 691, 695 (CCPA 1980); Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d 636,
640, 146 USPQ 199, 202 (CCPA 1965). Although adoption of the
“rule of reason” has eased the requirement of corroboration
with respect to the quantum of evidence necessary to establish
the inventor’s credibility, it has not altered the requirement
that corroborative evidence must not depend solely on the
inventor himself or herself, and must be independent of
information received by the inventor. Reese v. Hurst, 661
F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981); Mikus v.
Wachtel, 542 F.2d 1157, 1161-62, 191 USPQ 571, 575 (CCPA
1976).
Conception is the “formation in the mind of the inventor,
of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative
invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.”
Hybritech Inc., v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1397,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007