SOLOMON V. BHAGAVATULA - Page 9




                     (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