Interference No. 103,878
v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981):
"[the]
adoption of the 'rule of reason' has not altered the
requirement that evidence of corroboration must not depend
solely on the inventor himself." There must be evidence
independent from the inventor corroborating the conception.
Additionally, we acknowledge that there is no single
formula that must be followed in proving corroboration. An
evaluation of all pertinent evidence must be made so that a
sound determination of the credibility of the inventor's story
may be reached. Price, 988 F.2d at 1195, 26 USPQ2d at 1037.
Independent corroboration may consist of testimony of a
witness, other than the inventor, to the actual reduction to
practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts
and circumstances independent of information received from the
inventor. Reese, 661 F.2d at 1125, 211 USPQ at 940. See
also, for conception, Rivise and Caesar, Interference Law and
Practice, Vol. I, § 126
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007