Interference No. 104,403
indented transparent concave lenses in between permitting the
passage of light (Rosenthal Opening Brief page 4) and attaches a
photograph of the lens sheet as Exhibit 2141 (Rosenthal Record page
43). Exhibit 2141 appears to be a sheet with one surface which is
constituted by a plurality of conic members with planar members
therebetween and a second surface that is constituted by a plurality of
convex members. However, the junior party has not submitted any
evidence which corroborates that this prototype existed
on May 5, 1990 and absent corroboration, the evidence is insufficient
to prove an actual reduction to practice. “In order to establish an
actual reduction to practice, an inventor’s testimony must be
corroborated by independent evidence.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d
1321, 1330, 47 US{Q2d 1896, 1903 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Rosenthal testifies (Rosenthal Record pages 34 to 35) that he
prepared another prototype by August 14, 1992 which was shown to
Lauter. Lauter corroborates that a lens sheet which is depicted in
Exhibit 2118 and which met the requirements of the count was in
existence as of August 14, 1992 (Rosenthal Record page 46).
The senior party argues that the junior party’s proof of reduction
to practice is insufficient to carry his burden of proof (Magee Brief in
Opposition to Rosenthal Opening Brief page 18). The senior party first
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007