Interference No. 102,408
to establish priority of invention (KB4). See Keizer v.
Bradley, 270 F.2d 396, 397, 123 USPQ 215, 216 (CCPA 1959).
A party establishing an actual reduction to practice of
the subject matter of a count must show a reduction to
practice of each and every limitation of the count. Newkirk
v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed.
Cir. 1987); Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d 1326, 1329, 217 USPQ
753, 755 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Parker v. Frilette, 462 F.2d
544, 548, 174 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1972); Szekely v. Metcalf,
455 F.2d 1393, 1396, 173 USPQ 116, 119 (CCPA 1972); Schur v.
Muller, 372 F.2d 546, 551, 152 USPQ 605, 609 (CCPA 1967).
However, where, as here, the count embraces a number of
compounds, a reduction to practice of a single compound within
the scope of the count constitutes a reduction to practice of
the invention defined by the count for purposes of priority of
invention in an interference proceeding. Compare Breuer v.
DeMarinis, 58 F.2d 22, 24 n.5, 194 USPQ 308, 309 n.5 (CCPA
1977); Mikus v. Wachtel, 504 F.2d 1150, 1152, 183 USPQ 752,
753 (CCPA 1974); Den Beste v. Martin, 252 F.2d 302, 304-05,
116 USPQ 584, 586 (CCPA 1954).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007