Interference No. 103,586
1989); Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 613, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Such evidence “may consist of testimony of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual
reduction to practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances
independent of the information received from the inventor”(our emphasis). Hahn, 892 F.2d
at 1032-1033, 13 USPQ at 1317; Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ2d
936, 940 (CCPA 1981). The purpose of the rule requiring corroboration is to prevent
fraud. Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 267, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA 1969). A rule of
reason applies to determine whether the inventor’s testimony has been sufficiently
corroborated. Price v. Symsek,, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194-1195, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1036-37
(Fed. Cir. 1993). The “rule of reason” 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, 642, 146 USPQ 199, 203 (CCPA
1965). There is no single formula that must be followed in proving corroboration. Whether
an actual reduction to practice has been corroborated must be decided on the facts of
each particular case. Berges, 618 F.2d at 776, 205 USPQ at 695. Nonetheless, adoption
of the “rule of reason” has not dispensed with the requirement that corroborative evidence
must not depend solely from the inventor himself but must be independent of information
received from the inventor. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360, 224 USPQ 857, 862
(Fed. Cir. 1985) Reese, 661 F.2d at 1225, 211 USPQ at 940 (CCPA 1981); Mikus v.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007