Interference No. 103,146
Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 1363, 186 USPQ 209, 212
(CCPA 1975); In re Dardick, 496 F.2d 1234, 1238, 181 USPQ 834,
837 (CCPA 1974)(“To prove a reduction to practice, all that
must be shown is that the invention is suitable for its
intended purpose . . . . There is
no requirement for a reduction to practice that the invention,
when tested, be in a commercially satisfactory stage of
development.”). Thus, the fact that perhaps half of the
injectate housings of one batch leaked around the eyelet tube
would merely establish that the product was not yet
commercially viable, in that every unit would need to be
tested and half of all units discarded or repaired.
Furthermore, even if the invention were considered to have a
defect, due to crude construction, which we must emphasize the
junior party has not proven here, the reduction to practice is
not negated, if the solution to the defect is obvious to one
of ordinary skill.
Austin Powder Co. v. Atlas Powder Co., 219 USPQ 707, 713 (D.
Del. 1983). In this instance, it appears that the leakage
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007