Interference No. 102,712
good chemical resistance generally follow from a demonstration
of good wear resistance (AR-196, 382-83). Mehrotra has not
shown otherwise.
With regard to whether the so-called in-house screening
tests conducted by Kraemer (AR 381-82) adequately duplicated
actual working conditions, Kraemer and others were satisfied
that the results shown in AX-15 established that the Augustine
invention was useful for its intended purpose (AR-191, 202,
216, 227). This is all that is required for reduction to
practice. Screening, bench-scale or laboratory tests can be
relied upon as long as they are representative of the intended
use of the invention. See Tomecek v. Stimpson, supra, 513
F.2d at 618-19, 185 USPQ at 238-39; Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d
1058, 1062, 32 USPQ2d 1115, 1118-19 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Mehrotra has not otherwise established that the tests
conducted by Kraemer did not adequately simulate conditions
encountered in commercial machining operations.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Augustine has
established respective dates of conception and reduction to
practice earlier than any of those alleged by Mehrotra.
III. Correspondence of Suzuki’s Claims to the Count
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007