Interference No. 102,668
at the Miami meeting constituted an actual reduction to
practice. For this reason, the motion to suppress these
affidavits is denied. The question of how much of this
evidence is entitled to consideration in connection with the
patentability issue is addressed infra in the discussion of
that issue.
McMahon's case for an actual reduction to practice
McMahon concedes that Jones's disclosure, at the
November 1987 Miami meeting, of the structure of a device made
in Canada constitutes evidence of conception only, citing
DeKando v. Armstrong, 169 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office
1185, 1911 Comm'r Dec. 413 (App. D.C. 1911). According to
McMahon, Jones's additional detailed disclosure at that
meeting of tests performed in Canada constitutes an actual
reduction to practice in this country. No authority is cited
in support of this proposition and we are aware of none.
Testing performed abroad to prove that an invention works for
its intended purpose clearly constitute a foreign activity
relied on to establish a date of invention and thus is
excluded by 35 U.S.C. § 104 from the evidence that can be
relied on to establish a date of invention in this country.
- 29 -
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007