1315-16 (Fed.Cir.2002)). “[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate if a trier of fact applying the clear and convincing standard could find for either party.” Oney v. Ratliff, 182 F.3d 893, 895 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505). Further, reliance on “oral testimony to establish the existence of allegedly anticipatory devices has long been viewed with skepticism.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1578-79 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also TypeRight Keyboard, 374 F.3d at 1157-58(reversing district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity because trial was necessary to determine whether the testimony proffered by the defendant to prove that a document was prior art was credible); Woodland Trust v. Flower-tree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, as discussed above, the '651 patent
holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art holding that even credited testimony by an interested party absent corroborating documents is not sufficient to support a finding that a patent was anticipated by prior knowledge or use of the claimed invention holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b holding in an ordinary patent infringement suit the claim both arises out of and relates to the defendants alleged manufacturing using or selling of the claimed invention holding that benefits in excess of the support obligation could not be credited against future support