Interference No. 103,272
performed during the ordinary course of an organized research program. Cf. Lacotte v.
Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 612-13, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed.Cir. 1985). We perceive of no
reason why such internal test records cannot be used. Nor has the party Okamoto shown
any.
III
With respect to reduction to practice, it is well settled that an actual reduction
to practice must meet each limitation of the count. See, in general, Newkirk v. Lulejian,
825 F.2d 1581, 1582-83, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794-95 (Fed.Cir. 1987) and
Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92, 101, 144 USPQ 661, 669 (CCPA 1965). Proof of an actual
reduction to practice requires a showing that the embodiment relied upon actually worked
for its intended use. DSL Dynamic Sciences, Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal , Inc., 928 F.2d
1122, 1125, 18 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (Fed.Cir. 1991) and Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d at
1582, 3 USPQ2d at 1794. The testing must demonstrate a practical utility for the invention
and the testing requirement depends on the particular facts of each case, with the fact
finder guided by a common sense approach in weighing the sufficiency of the testing.
Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d1058, 1062, 32 USPQ2d 1115, 1118 (Fed.Cir. 1994). When the
count does not specify any particular use, a showing of substantial utility for any purpose is
sufficient to establish actual reduction to practice. Shurie v. Richmond, 699 F.2d 1156,
1159, 216 USPQ 1042, 1045 (Fed.Cir. 1983).
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007