Interference No. 103,322
it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and
circumstances independent of information received from the
inventor. Reese, 661 F.2d at 1125, 211 USPQ at 940.
If a party places reliance on an embodiment of the
invention in some physical form, such as a sketch or drawing,
for proof of conception, the existence of the embodiment at
the time must be established by testimony of a person other
than the inventor. Moran v. Paskert, 205 USPQ 356, 359 (Bd.
Pat. Int. 1979). Accord Price, 988 F.2d at 1196, 26 USPQ2d at
1037-38 (testimony of secretary that she recalled seeing
drawing as of critical date provides necessary evidence
corroborating testimony of inventor as to date of conception).
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, 1582, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir.
1987). As was stated in Paine v. Inoue, 195 USPQ 598, 604
(Bd. Pat. Int. 1976):
The nature of testing required to establish
a reduction to practice depends on the par-
ticular facts of each case; a common-sense
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007