Interference No. 102,712
the inventor’s credibility, it has not altered the requirement
that corroborative evidence must not depend solely on the
inventor himself and must be independent of information
received from the inventor. Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222,
1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981); Mikus v. Watchtel, 542
F.2d 1157, 1159, 191 USPQ 571, 573 (CCPA 1976).
Mehrotra is apparently of the view that documentary
evidence alone is sufficient to corroborate an inventor’s
testimony. To support this proposition, Mehrotra relies upon
Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1239, 20 USPQ2d 1712,
1715 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187,
1195-96, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1037-38 (Fed. Cir. 1993). These
cases do not support Mehrotra’s position since, in Holmwood,
corroboration was established through the testimony of Dr.
Zeck who was not an inventor. Similarly, in Price, testimony
independent of that of the inventor was offered to corroborate
the inventor’s testimony regarding the date of preparation of
a critical documentary exhibit.
The operative facts establishing corroboration in
Holmwood and Price are not present here. Here, Mehrotra
solely relies upon documentation, reputed to have been
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007