Interference No. 103,878
permanently spun on the reflector. This use would appear not
to satisfy the patent’s open at the bottom claim limitation,
and would therefore not have been anticipatory.
Additionally, with respect to Kenyon’s testimony,
rarely has unsupported oral testimony been considered
sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, and it must always
be subjected to close scrutiny. See Carella v. Starlight
Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 138, 231 USPQ 644, 646 (Fed. Cir.
1986). As the Court of Claims stated in Lockheed Aircraft v.
United States, 553 F.2d 69, 75, 193 USPQ 449, 454 (Ct. Cl.
1977):
Indeed, the oral testimony of witnesses,
speaking only from memory in regard to
past transactions has, in the absence of
contemporanous documentary or physical
evidence, consistently been found to be
of little probative value. . . . Such
uncorroborated testimony is insufficient
to show anticipation, within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 102, of an issued patent.
See also Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co.,
261 U.S. 45, 60 (1923)(oral evidence falls far short of over-
coming the presumption of patent novelty) and Wasburn & Moen
Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'em All Barbed-Wire Co., 143 U.S. 275, 284-
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007