Interference No. 103,675
because what was tested was not adequately identified.
Chen et al. also recognize that any evidence of an actual
reduction to practice must be corroborated. However, except for Chen
et al.'s pronouncement that their proofs bring this case within the
penumbra of cases which pronounce a "rule of reason" must be applied
to the evidence which establishes corroboration, there is little or no
specific reference in Chen et al.'s brief to what specific acts by
what non-inventors constitute evidence of corroboration independent of
any knowledge derived from the inventors.
Just as proofs of an actual reduction to practice must show
that every element of the count was actually reduced to practice, a
party's evidence of corroboration must corroborate each of the
prerequisites for an actual reduction to practice. It is by now well-
settled that an inventor must provide independent corroborating
evidence in addition to his own statements and documents. Lacotte v.
Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 613, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The
evidence establishing corroboration "may consist of testimony of a
witness, other than an 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 v.
Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981) (emphasis
ours).
86
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007