Interference No. 103,586
specific facts and arguments of the parties relied upon in their briefs. See 37 C.F.R. §
4
1.656(b)(5) and (b)(6) .
Reduction to practice
The issue of reduction to practice is a question of law. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
480 U.S. 947 (1987). To establish a reduction to practice of a method count, a party must
show that each step of the method was performed. Szekely v. Metcalf, 455 F.2d 1393,
1396, 173 USPQ 116, 119 (CCPA 1972). All limitations of the count have to be satisfied.
Id. Such performance may be made by the inventor or someone on his behalf. When
reviewing the sufficiency of evidence for reduction to practice a “reasonableness” standard
is applied. Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238, 20 USPQ2d 1712, 1714
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
The reduction to practice must be corroborated in point of time. An inventor must
provide independent corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and
documents. Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
37 CFR § 1.656(b)(5) requires:4
[A] statement of facts, in numbered paragraphs, relevant to the issues
presented for decision with appropriate references to the record.
and 37 C.F.R. § 1.656(b)(6) requires:
[A]n argument, which may be preceded by a summary, which shall contain
the contentions of the party with respect to the issues to be decided, and the
reasons therefor, with citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and
part of the record relied on.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007