Interference No. 103,446
recognition and appreciation of the invention represented by
the count by the inventor at the time the reduction to
practice was made. Breen v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d 1398, 1401, 176
USPQ 519, 521 (CCPA 1973). There can be no actual reduction to
practice without proving a physical embodiment which includes
all the limitations of the count has been prepared. U.M. C.
Electronics Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652, 2 USPQ2d
1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
While the parties have stipulated that the various
starting materials set forth in Marsh's notebooks, when
reacted together, would form a polyurethane and/or polyurea
(SR479, 480), the parties have also stipulated that Sanns did
not become aware of either the particle size or the aspect
ratio of the mica required by the count until July 21, 1988.
Thus, Sanns did not and could not have had an appreciation or
recognition of the requirements of the count with respect to
either the particle size or aspect ratio which was
contemporaneous with the activity in February 1986, March 1986
or May 1988.
According to Sanns' testimony, he instructed Marsh,
now deceased, to prepare polyurethane/polyurea plaques in a
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007