Interference No. 103,352
explanatory and must be discussed with particularity by a
witness. 37 CFR 1.671(f); Rebstock v. Flouret, 191 USPQ 342, 345
(Bd. Pat. Int. 1975). Since only the inventors testified as to
exhibits KX 3-5, we find that those exhibits do not constitute
sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature to
satisfy the corroboration rule.
With regard to the analytical report from Robertson
Laboratory (KX-6), it too has not been discussed with
particularity by a witness other than inventor Khokhar (KR-16).
Although non-inventor Oeckinghaus did testify for the purpose of
authentication, she did not discuss any of the circumstances
surrounding the entries made in the report. Thus, the analytical
report also does not constitute sufficient circumstantial
evidence of an independent nature to corroborate synthesis of a
compound within the scope of the count. Moreover, an elemental
analysis alone is generally not definitive with regard to
identification of a specific compound. Cf. Berges v. Gottstein,
618 F.2d at 774, 205 USPQ at 694.
Significantly, there is no evidence of record to corroborate
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007