Interference No. 103,586
evidence necessary to establish the inventor’s credibility, it has not altered the requirement
that corroborative evidence must not depend solely on the inventor himself and must be
independent of information received from the inventor. White v. Haberstein, 219 USPQ
1213, 1217 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1983); citing Reese and Mikus [citations omitted].
Moreover, Casey’s broad statements are not sufficiently specific to support a holding that
Brown has established a reduction to practice. Corroboration must consist of factual
evidence as to what was done, not of broad generalizations or conclusions. Murphy v.
Eiseman, 166 USPQ 149 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1970) ; Azar v. Burns, 188 USPQ 601 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1975).
Thus after a reasoned examination, analysis and evaluation of all the pertinent
evidence relied upon by Brown et al., we find that the work allegedly done by the inventors
stands uncorroborated and thus, Brown have not established that they were the first to
reduce to practice the subject matter of the count.
V.
Was Brown the first to conceive and last to reduce to practice with the requisite diligence (
Issue 3)
Since we have found that Barbacid was the first to reduce the invention to practice,
Brown can still prevail if they establish that they were the first to conceive and last to reduce
to practice with reasonable diligence from a time prior to conception by another. 35
U.S.C. § 102(g).
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007