Interference No. 103,467
its intended purpose may require testing. See Mahurkar v.
C.R.
Bard Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir.
1996). When testing is necessary, the embodiment relied upon
as evidence of priority must actually work for its intended
purpose. See Scott, 34 F.3d at 1061, 32 USPQ2d at 1117.
When an inventor's testimony merely places acts
within a stated time period, the inventor has not established
a date for his activities earlier than the last day of the
period. Oka v. Youssefyeh, 849 F.2d 581, 584, 7 USPQ2d 1169,
1172 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The junior party may rely on inventive
acts in Bahrain by virtue of 35 U.S.C. § 104. Therefore, in
accordance with our above-noted factual findings, we credit
the junior party with an actual reduction to practice as of
March 15, 1992. Junior party has proven priority of invention
by antedating the senior party’s effective filing date. We
enter judgment in favor of the junior party.
Judgment
Judgment in Interference No. 103,467 is entered
against Russell R. Wagner, the senior party. Russell R.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007