Interference No. 104,241
Additionally, in establishing an actual reduction to
practice, each of the prerequisites for establishing an actual
reduction to practice must be corroborated by a non-inventor.
The objective sought in requiring independent corroboration of
an actual reduction to practice of a chemical compound is to
insure that the inventor actually prepared the compound and
knew it would work for its intended purpose. However, the
standard is not inflexible and is not to be applied
mechanically. Hence a "rule of reason" approach is required.
Mikus v. Wachtel, 504 F.2d 1150, 1152, 183 USPQ 752, 753 (CCPA
1974). Further, corroboration does not necessarily have to be
established by an "over-the-shoulder" observer. Rather,
sufficient circumstantial evidence can satisfy the requirement
for corroboration. Knorr v. Pearson, 671 F.2d 1368, 1373, 213
USPQ 196, 200 (CCPA 1982); Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611,
613, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Berges v. Gottstein,
618 F.2d 771, 774, 205 USPQ 691, 695 (CCPA 1980).
Nonetheless, each and every limitation or element of the count
must be corroborated. Mikus v. Wachtel, id.
Where, as here, the count embraces a broad genus of
compounds, the reduction to practice of a single compound
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007