if the key chain of the drawings can be said to fall within the
scope of the count, there is no corroborating evidence indicating
that the key chain of the drawings is the same as the snowboard
key chain Mr. Hiebel says he made. Inventor testimony must be
corroborated by independent evidence. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154
F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ2d at 1903.
The physical embodiment relied upon as an actual reduction
to practice must include every limitation of the count. Cooper
v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d at 1328, 47 USPQ2d at 1902. We have not
been directed to evidence sufficient to persuade us that the key
chain Mr. Hiebel says he made was within the scope of the count.
We have not been directed to evidence sufficient to indicate to
us that the key chain of the submitted drawings is the same as
the key chain Mr. Hiebel says he made between 7 October 1996 and
1 November 1996 or even that the key chain of the submitted
drawings falls within the scope of the count. Accordingly,
Winter has not shown that it reduced to practice a key chain
within the scope of the count prior to Bergfalk's '498 filing
date of 13 February 1997.
It is not necessary to consider Bergfalk's arguments (Paper
36) since Winter has not established a reduction to practice
prior to Bergfalk's constructive reduction to practice.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007