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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007