Interference No. 103,878
Conception is complete when one of ordinary skill in
the art could construct the apparatus without unduly extensive
research or experimentation. Sewell, 21 F.3d at 416, 30
USPQ2d at 1359. See Summers v. Vogel, 332 F.2d 810, 816, 141
USPQ 816, 821 (CCPA 1964); In re Tansel, 253 F.2d 241, 243,
117 USPQ 188, 189 (CCPA 1958).
Neither conception nor reduction to practice may be
established by the uncorroborated testimony of the inventor.
See Tomecek v. Stimpson, 513 F.2d 614, 619, 185 USPQ 235, 239
(CCPA 1975). The inventor's testimony, standing alone, is
insufficient to prove conception--some form of corroboration
must be shown. See Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194, 26
USPQ2d 1031, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the "rule of
reason"
originally developed with respect to reduction to practice has
been extended to the corroboration required for proof of
conception, the rule does not dispense with the requirement
of some evidence of independent corroboration. See Coleman,
754 F.2d at 360, 224 USPQ at 862. As the CCPA stated in Reese
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007