Is it necessary to submit an affidavit with a derivation proceeding petition that addresses communication and lack of authorization?

The correct choice indicates that it is not necessary to submit an affidavit with a derivation proceeding petition if there is sufficient proof available. In derivation proceedings, a party seeks to claim that another party derived the invention from them without authorization. The critical requirement is to demonstrate the communication of the invention and the lack of authorization.

If a petitioner has already provided adequate evidence to support these claims—like documentation or records that show prior communications or ownership evidence—then an affidavit is not mandated. This aligns with the procedural expectations of the patent office, which allows for sufficient proof to stand on its own without the added formality of an affidavit.

The other options suggest absolute requirements for affidavits regardless of circumstances or the adequacy of evidence, which misrepresent the flexibility the rules provide based on the strength of the presented proof. Hence, understanding the evidence's sufficiency is key to determining the necessity of further documentation like affidavits in such proceedings.