Interference No. 103,146
It is 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).
It is equally 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
insufficient to prove conception--some form of corroboration
must be shown.
See Price, 988 F.2d at 1194, 26 USPQ2d at 1036. While the
"rule of reason," originally developed with respect to
reduction to practice, has been extended to the corroboration
required for
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007