LEVIEN V. KATAYAMA et al. - Page 24


                 Interference No. 103,587                                                                                                            

                 comprising a plan of manipulating a pixel on top and both sides of a pixel using recursion, prior                                   
                 outputs and hystersis on November 8, 1987.  An inventor must prove conception by                                                    
                 corroborating evidence.  Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. 40 F.3d 1223, 32 USPQ2d 1915                                          
                 (Fed. Cir. 1994).                                                                                                                   
                          We are also of the opinion that the party Levien has not established actual reduction to                                   
                 practice at any time prior to its filing date.  Levien’s case for actual reduction to practice fails for                            
                 the same reasons that its case for prior conception fails.  The testimony of the sole corroborating                                 
                 witness, Jack Levien, does not establish that the variable size of each plurality of adjacent dots                                  
                 was determined from a recursive relationship involving, inter alia, a value of a current input                                      
                 signal and an error representing a difference between a value of a previous input point and the                                     
                 previous output.  A party seeking to establish actual reduction to practice must show that it                                       
                 constructed an embodiment that met every element of the count.  Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094,                                      
                 53 USPQ2d 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  Furthermore, the testimony of Jack Levien is unpersuasive                                         
                 because of the complexity of the invention and the fact that it has not been shown that he was                                      
                 skilled in the particulars involved such that he understood and would be able to recall what he                                     
                 actually saw, he was the inventor’s father, and he testified largely from memory some nine years                                    
                 after the occurrences of which he spoke.  The requirement for independent corroboration of                                          
                 actual reduction to practice is well established.  Reese v. Hurst v. Wiewiorowski, 661 F.2d 1222,                                   
                 211 USPQ 936 (CCPA 1981).                                                                                                           
                          There is no corroboration that the WAVY.BAS program of LX-10 would determine the                                           
                 variable size of each of a plurality of adjacent dots from a recursive relationship between a value                                 
                 of a current input, a previous output, and an error representing a difference between a value of a                                  
                 previous input point and the previous output.  Furthermore, there is no corroboration that the                                      



                                                                         24                                                                          



Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007