Interference No. 103,675
The evidence necessary for corroboration is determined by
the so-called "rule of reason" which involves an examination, analysis
and evaluation of the record as a whole to the end that a reasoned
determination as to the credibility of the inventor's story may be
reached. Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 205 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1980);
Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d 636, 146 USPQ 199 (CCPA 1965). It has been
recognized that whether an actual reduction to practice has been
corroborated must be decided on the facts of each particular case.
Berges v. Gottstein 618 F.2d at 776, 205 USPQ at 695. Nonetheless,
adoption of the "rule of reason" has not dispensed with the
requirement that corroborative evidence must not depend solely from
the inventor himself but must be independent of information received
from the inventor. Reese v. Hurst, id., Mikus v. Wachtel, 542 F.2d
1157, 1159, 191 USPQ 571, 573 (CCPA 1976).
Chen et al. attempt to create a trail from Dr. Chen's
laboratory to the analytical section at Bristol-Myers Squibb for the
purpose of bringing this case under the holding of the line of cases
invoking the so-called "rule of reason" for determining whether or not
an actual reduction to practice has been corroborated. But, much of
the evidence of the analysis of the compounds prepared by Dr. Chen and
which he believed at the time he synthesized them to be mixtures of
fluoro epimers of taxol and on which Chen et al. now rely evidences
87
Page: Previous 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007