40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 771 (1996);
Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Gunter v. Stream, 573
F.2d 77, 80, 197 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1978). The idea must be "so clearly defined in the inventor's
mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive
research or experimentation." Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1597, 38 USPQ2d at 1291; Burroughs, 40 F.3d at
1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1919. A conception must include every feature or limitation of the count. Kridl, 105
F.3d at 1449, 41 USPQ2d at 1689. Thus, in order to establish conception, a party must prove possession
of every feature stated in the count, and that every limitation of the count must have been known to the
inventor at the time of the alleged conception. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862; Davis v.
Reddy, 620 F.2d 885, 889, 205 USPQ 1065, 1069 (CCPA 1980). Each express limitation of the count
is considered material and cannot be disregarded. Schur v. Muller, 372 F.2d 546, 551, 152 USPQ 605,
609 (CCPA 1967).
Conception can not be proved by the inventor’s testimony alone, it must be corroborated. Gambro
Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1576, 42 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
1997); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1993). "Conception
must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his 'complete
thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art' to make the invention." Coleman,
754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862 (quoting Fields v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601, 86 USPQ 373,
379 (CCPA 1950)). However, "there is no final single formula that must be followed in proving
corroboration." Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 266, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA 1969). Rather, the
sufficiency of corroborative evidence is determined by the "rule of reason." Scott, 34 F.3d at 1061-62,
32 USPQ2d at 1118; Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238, 20 USPQ2d 1712, 1714 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). Price, 988 F.2d at 1195, 26 USPQ2d at 1037; Berry, 412 F.2d at 266, 162 USPQ at 173.
Accordingly, we must make a reasonable analysis of all of the pertinent evidence to determine whether the
inventor's testimony is credible. Price, 988 F.2d at 1195, 26 USPQ at 1037. We must also bear in mind
the purpose of corroboration, which is to prevent fraud, by providing independent confirmation of the
inventor's testimony. See Berry, 412 F.2d at 266, 162 USPQ at 173 ("The purpose of the rule requiring
- 12 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007