Interference No. 103,169
F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1919, citing Applegate v. Scherer, 332 F.2d 571, 573, 141
USPQ 796, 799 (CCPA 1964).
VlI.
Chenevey et al. Reduction to Practice
We find, based on the evidence relied upon by Chenevey et al. in the brief, that
Chenevey et al. have not proven, by a preponderance of evidence, an actual reduction to
practice of the invention in issue prior to June 30, 1984.
The issue of reduction to practice is a question of law. Hybritech, 802 F.2d at 1376,
231 USPQ at 87. To establish a reduction to practice of a method count, a party must
show that each step of the method was performed. Szekely v. Metcalf, 455 F.2d 1393,
1396, 173 USPQ 116, 119 (CCPA 1972). All limitations of the count have to be satisfied.
Id. Such performance may be made by the inventor or someone on his behalf. A party
must show that the method produced the product of the count. Blicke v. Treves, 241 F.2d
718, 720-721, 112 USPQ 472, 475 (CCPA 1957). Where the objective of the process is
to produce a product having particular properties, the product must be tested to show that
it has the desired properties, and that the product is satisfactory for its intended purpose,
which in some cases requires testing of the product. Birmingham v. Randall, 171 F.2d
957, 958-959, 80 USPQ 371, 372 (CCPA 1948). Whether a product must be tested in
order to establish a reduction to practice, and if so, what tests are necessary, is a question
which must be decided on the basis of
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007