Interference No. 104,403
perfected the invention on August 14, 1992.
The junior party has not submitted documentary evidence, such
as a laboratory notebook, which details what was done to perfect the
invention on what date. The junior party has not submitted any
evidence corroborating the activities described in the Rosenthal
affidavit. It is an established principle that the testimony of the inventor
must be adequately corroborated. Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908,
918, 150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966). Corroboration is additional
evidence tending to confirm and strengthen or to demonstrate the
probability of truth of the inventor’s testimony. Corroboration is
important because the opponent is rarely in the position to present
evidence contradicting the inventor’s statement. As such, without
corroboration, we will not accord significant weight to the testimony of
Rosenthal regarding the activities that took place between the
reduction to practice on April 11, 1994 and the filing of the patent
application on January 18, 1995.
When all the evidence is considered as a whole, it is our opinion
that the junior party has not sufficiently rebutted the inference of
suppression or concealment.
Resumed activity
The junior party may still be entitled to his reduction to practice
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007