WHISENANT V. WAGNER - Page 6




          Interference No. 103,467                                                    



          either a constructive reduction to practice, which occurs when              
          a patent application   is filed, or an actual reduction to                  
          practice.  See Hybritech,  802 F.2d at 1376, 231 USPQ at 87.                
          In order to establish an  actual reduction to practice, the                 
          inventor must prove that:                                                   
          (1) he constructed an embodiment or performed a process that                
          met all the limitations of the interference count; and (2) he               
          determined that the invention would work for its intended                   
          purpose.  See UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647,                
          652, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484                
          U.S. 1025 (1988) ("[T]here cannot be a reduction to practice                
          of the invention . . . without a physical embodiment which                  
          includes all limitations of  the claim."); Estee Lauder Inc.                
          v. L'Oreal S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 593, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed.              
          Cir. 1997) ("[A] reduction to practice does not occur until                 
          the inventor has determined that the invention will work for                
          its intended  purpose.").  Depending on the character of the                
          invention and the problem it solves, determining that the                   
          invention will work for                                                     



                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007