(CCPA 1976); Linkow v. Linkow, 517 F.2d 1370, 1373, 186 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1975); Frilette
v. Kimberlin, 412 F.2d 1390, 1391, 162 USPQ 148, 149 (CCPA 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1002
(1970). Since the applications were copending the applicable standard of proof is preponderance of the
evidence.
2. Actual Reduction to Practice
An actual reduction to practice requires proof of the existence of a physical embodiment within the
scope of the count. Correge v. Murphy , 705 F.2d 1326, 1329, 217 USPQ 753, 755 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
1 C. Rivise & A. Caesar, Interference Law and Practice § 137 (1940). The embodiment relied upon for
an actual reduction to practice must include every limitation stated in the count. Schendel v. Curtis, 83 F.3d
1399,1402, 38 USPQ2d 1743, 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582-83,
3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Hummer v. Administrator of National Aeronautics & Space
Administration, 500 F.2d 1383, 1387, 183 USPQ 45, 48 (CCPA 1974) (the device must include every
count limitation); Szekely v. Metcalf, 455 F.2d 1393, 1396, 173 USPQ 116, 119 (CCPA 1972) (all the
limitations of the counts have to be satisfied). The evidence must also show that the embodiment is suitable
for and actually worked for its intended purpose. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1578, 38 USPQ2d at 1291; Scott
v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1061, 32 USPQ2d 1115, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Newkirk, 825 F.2d at 1583,
3 USPQ2d at 1794; Wiesner v. Weigert, 666 F.2d 582, 588, 212 USPQ 721, 726 (CCPA 1981). In
other words, the embodiment must have a practical utility. Fujikawa, 93 F.3d at 1563, 39 USPQ2d at
1898-99. Testing need not show utility beyond a possibility of failure, but only utility beyond a probability
of failure. Scott, 34 F.3d at 1061062, 32 USPQ2d at 1118; Taylor v. Swingle , 136 F.2d 914, 917, 58
USPQ 468, 471 (CCPA 1943). And there is no requirement that the embodiment be in a "commercially
satisfactory stage of development" to constitute a reduction to practice. Scott, 34 F.3d at 1063, 32
USPQ2d at 1118; DSL Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal Inc., 928 F.2d 1122 , 1126,
18 USPQ2d 1152, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 1991); King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 861,
226 USPQ 402, 407 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Randolph v. Shoberg, 590 F.2d 923, 926, 200 USPQ 647,
649-50 (CCPA 1979).
Solomon testifies that:
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007