Interference No. 102,668
in the device he saw being tested in August 1988 were curved,
the only limitation McMahon argues was lacking in that device.
In order for the tests observed by Packard to
establish an actual reduction to practice, "there must be a
relationship between the test conditions and the intended
functional setting . . . and the tests must prove that the
invention will perform satisfactorily in the intended
functional setting." Koval v. Bodenschatz, 463 F.2d 442, 447,
174 USPQ 451, 455 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, Cavanagh must
prove that the operability of the tested device was recognized
and appreciated by Cavanagh (or by someone acting on his
behalf who was in a position to judge the success of the
tests) prior to McMahon's filing date. Estee Lauder Inc. v.
L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 594, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614-15
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Cavanagh's evidence fails satisfy any of
the foregoing requirements. No witness (including Cavanagh)
disclosed the conditions of the tests witnessed by Packard or
explained why those conditions modeled the intended working
environment. Nor did any witness explain the data represented
in the graph of Exhibit C, as required by 37 CFR § 1.671(f):
"The significance of documentary and other exhibits identified
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007