Interference No. 103,467 its intended purpose may require testing. See Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When testing is necessary, the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority must actually work for its intended purpose. See Scott, 34 F.3d at 1061, 32 USPQ2d at 1117. When an inventor's testimony merely places acts within a stated time period, the inventor has not established a date for his activities earlier than the last day of the period. Oka v. Youssefyeh, 849 F.2d 581, 584, 7 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The junior party may rely on inventive acts in Bahrain by virtue of 35 U.S.C. § 104. Therefore, in accordance with our above-noted factual findings, we credit the junior party with an actual reduction to practice as of March 15, 1992. Junior party has proven priority of invention by antedating the senior party’s effective filing date. We enter judgment in favor of the junior party. Judgment Judgment in Interference No. 103,467 is entered against Russell R. Wagner, the senior party. Russell R. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007