Interference No. 103,586
would not be sufficient, along with Reiss’s testimony to establish an actual reduction to
practice. An inventor’s testimony and documentation are self serving and cannot be
corroborative of the inventor’s work. Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1031, 13 USPQ2d at 1215.
Brown offers the testimony of Casey to corroborate Reiss’s work. We find Casey’s
testimony insufficient to establish an actual reduction to practice by Reiss. As noted
earlier, Casey, with respect to the alleged experiment of September 25, 1989 testified that
“he recalled that by at least about the end of October or the beginning of November, I was
aware that Dr. Reiss had demonstrated that short peptides, derived from ras, inhibited
farnesyl transferase activity in vitro in the gel-based assay ...”. Even in the most favorable
light, this testimony is not sufficient to establish an actual reduction to practice by Brown.
As correctly pointed out by Barbacid, it is necessary that corroboration be
independent of the inventor. The record does not establish that Casey had first-hand
knowledge of the alleged experiment carried out by Reiss or of the results of such
experiment. His testimony that upon recall he was aware of what Reiss had demonstrated
that short peptides inhibit FT activity does not establish that the method of the count was
successfully performed. On this record, Casey does not explain how he became aware.
He could have become aware of this information from the inventor. The burden is on Brown
to prove that information was not derived from the inventor but rather independent of the
inventor. Zoiss v. Nix, 185 USPQ 419 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interference 1974). While the rule
of reason has eased the requirement of corroboration with respect to the quantum of
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007