Interference No. 103,446
that Sanns did not reduce to practice an embodiment within the
count until July 21, 1988, Sanns work in 1986 is not relevant
to the time period in question. However, we observe that
there is no requirement that the physical embodiment relied
upon as an actual reduction to practice include every
essential limitation of a party's claims corresponding to the
count. Rather, the physical embodiment relied on as an actual
reduction to practice must include every essential limitation
of the count. Correge, 705 F.2d at 1329, 217 USPQ at 755.
We have not overlooked Martinez' alternative
position that Sanns' had a deliberate policy directed to
concealing his invention from the public (Martinez' brief,
p.6, 7, 9-11). To the extent the concealment was by Bayer,
Martinez suggests that Bayer's action is imputable to Sanns,
the inventor (Martinez brief, p.9, f.n. 9). Nevertheless,6
the alleged deliberate policy of concealment occurred at a
time, February "1986 until at least the middle of 1988"
(Martinez brief p.10), when Sanns had not yet reduced to
practice an embodiment within Count 1. As we stated above,
without an actual reduction to practice there can be no
The record in this interference does not establish6
that either of the involved parties' respective application
and patent are assigned. The parties are ordered within 10
(ten) days of the date of this opinion to file the appropriate
paper under 37 C.F.R. § 1.602(c).
23
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007