Interference No. 104,241
the count in the interference existed in the embodiment relied
on as an actual reduction to practice and the embodiment must
be demonstrated to have performed as intended. Newkirk v.
Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir.
1987); Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d 1326, 1329, 217 USPQ 753,
755 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Parker v. Frilette, 462 F.2d 544, 548,
174 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1972); Szekely v. Metcalf, 455 F.2d
1393, 1396, 173 USPQ 116, 119 (CCPA 1972); Schur v. Muller,
372 F.2d 546, 551, 152 USPQ 605, 609 (CCPA 1967). The
invention of a compound is not considered to be complete
unless its utility is established by proper tests. Blicke v.
Treves, 241 F.2d 718, 720, 112 USPQ 472, 475 (CCPA 1957).
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007