Interference No. 103,669
353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Gunter
v. Stream, 573 F.2d 77, 80, 197 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1978)).
It is settled that in establishing conception a party must
show every feature recited in the count, and that every
limitation in the count must have been known at the time of
the alleged conception. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at
862.
It is equally well established that proof of actual
reduction to practice requires demonstration that the
embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked
for its intended purpose. Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581,
1583, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Finally, it is also well established that every
limitation of the interference count must exist in the
embodiment and be shown to have performed as intended. Id.
See also Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1061, 32 USPQ2d 1115,
1117 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Neither conception nor reduction to practice may be
established by the uncorroborated testimony of the inventor.
See Tomecek v. Stimpson, 513 F.2d 614, 619, 185 USPQ 235, 239
(CCPA 1975). The inventor's testimony, standing alone, is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007