In a derivation proceeding, what is required if the affiant is not the inventor?

In a derivation proceeding, if the affiant is not the inventor, there is no requirement for corroboration of evidence. Derivation proceedings are typically initiated to resolve disputes over who is entitled to claim priority of invention when two parties claim the same invention. The focus of the proceeding is on the issues surrounding the actual invention and its original author(s).

When an affiant who is not the inventor submits evidence, the lack of requirement for corroboration simplifies the process. The Board examines the evidence presented in the context of the claims being made without needing to have that evidence supported by corroboration from additional sources. This can facilitate the resolution of the derivation proceeding by concentrating on the substantial merits of the case rather than being hindered by rigorous rules of evidence that typically require corroboration.

In contrast, the other options introduce requirements or conditions that don't apply in this specific context, such as needing corroboration or having to review all evidence by the Board, which could potentially complicate the process unnecessarily. This understanding is crucial for practitioners dealing with derivation proceedings to navigate them effectively.