Interference No. 102,712
contemporaneously prepared, to corroborate inventor testimony
as to both conception and reduction to practice. Only co-
inventor Mehrotra testified as to those documents. In the
absence of any independent testimony regarding the
authenticity of those documents, we find that the documents by
themselves do not provide the necessary corroboration of the
inventor’s testimony.
Furthermore, we note that Mehrotra primarily relies upon
a progress report (MX-3) to corroborate an actual reduction to
practice. We agree with Augustine (ARB-17) that even if the
activities reported in the last sentence on page 2 of the
document are accepted at face value, there is no indication in
the document that testing of the coated ceramic product to
establish its utility had been completed as of the alleged
date of the report. The report only indicates that “further
evaluation is underway.” Accordingly, the report, even if
accepted at face value and taken in conjunction with
Mehrotra’s testimony (MR 47-50), is insufficient to establish
an actual reduction to practice as of June 26, 1985.
Reduction to practice of a product is generally not considered
as complete until it has been successfully tested to establish
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007