Interference No. 102,712
substrate” (AR-202, 216, 227). Successful testing of a single
embodiment within the scope of the count is sufficient to
establish an actual reduction to practice. See Breuer v.
DeMarinis, 558 F.2d 22, 24, footnote 5, 194 USPQ 308, 309,
footnote 5 (CCPA 1977). Kraemer explained that the
disappointing results encountered in the later tests (AX-16)
were apparently due to a structural defect in the cutting tool
insert. However, Kraemer apparently did not believe that this
cast doubt on the utility of the Augustine invention (AR-203).
Subsequent development testing does not necessarily negate a
prior reduction to practice. See Tomecek v. Stimpson, 513
F.2d 614, 619, 185 USPQ 235, 239 (CCPA 1975).
Other questions raised by Mehrotra concerning Augustine’s
priority case have been adequately addressed in Augustine’s
brief and reply brief. To wit, with regard to whether the
cutting tool reduced to practice by Augustine included a
coating which exhibited chemical and friction resistance,
Kraemer was satisfied that the coating provided an effective
chemical and friction resistant layer (AR-202). Augustine
testified that wear resistance is a measure of both chemical
and friction resistance (AR-330). Kraemer confirmed that good
friction resistance and
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007