Interference No. 102,408
product of an "organized research program" requires some form
of independent corroboration. See Reese, 661 F.2d at 1228,
211 USPQ at 940 ("adoption of the 'rule of reason' has not
altered the requirement that evidence of corroboration must
not depend solely on the inventor himself"); Berges v.
Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 774, 205 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1980)
(although facts set forth "a highly organized procedure
routinely practiced," additional corroboration was provided by
relevant related independent events).
Finally, for the first time in its reply brief, junior
party Child relies on Blicharz v. Hays, 496 F.2d 603, 181 USPQ
712 (CCPA 1974), to advance a theory of corroboration based on
a comparison of laboratory notebooks and its subsequently
filed patent application (CRB4). Arguments presented for the
first time in a reply brief will not be considered. See Ernst
Haas Studio, Inc., 164 F.3d at 112, 49 USPQ2d at 1379 ("An
attempt is made in the Reply Brief to supply what was
conspicuously omitted in the main Brief . . . . However, new
arguments may not be made in a reply brief . . . and we
decline to entertain the theories so proffered."). Therefore,
we have not considered the argument.
29
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007