PACHOLOK V. HUTMACHER et al. - Page 8



               Interference No. 103,830                                                                                              


               and the engine and vehicle body.  However, such clips are clearly not practical for use as                            
               connector electrodes to disable a moving vehicle.  Pacholok contemplated HV wire electrodes                           
               providing arcing contact to the vehicle parts (Pacholok’s testimony at paragraph 20; Pacholok’s                       
               patent, column 7, lines 10-15).  Such contact electrodes would logically have been expected to                        
               provide a relatively high impedance path to the vehicle, such that Pacholok’s pulser may well                         
               have been unable to deliver sufficient power to disable the vehicles tested when moving.                              
                       Pacholok’s testimony that he disabled a 1993 vehicle moving at 10 MPH in the period                           
               April-May 1993 is simply uncorroborated by any independent evidence and, accordingly, the                             
               junior party has not established an actual reduction to practice at that time.  Furthermore,                          
               10 MPH does not represent the speed of a pursued vehicle.                                                             
                       The last example of testing relied on by the junior party to establish actual reduction to                    
               practice prior to Hutmacher’s filing date allegedly occurred in November 1993.  Although                              
               Pacholok testified that the test was made in the presence of R. Winston Slater and Charles                            
               Kuecker, Kuecker did not testify in this case and Slater’s testimony is silent with respect to his                    
               presence at the test.  Thus, there is no independent evidence from Kuecker or Slater                                  
               corroborating Pacholok’s testimony with respect to this alleged test.  Nor is there any other                         
               independent evidence tending to corroborate Pacholok’s testimony as to the test.  Accordingly,                        
               even though the inventor’s testimony indicates the test achieved his goal of slowing down a                           
               moving vehicle by disabling its electronics, this evidence is not corroborated and the alleged test                   
               does not establish an actual reduction to practice.                                                                   
                       Lastly, Pacholok did not verify that at least one electronic system (count 1) or one                          
               electronic engine control (count 2) was caused to fail.  It is reasonable that a vehicle was disabled                 


                                                            - 8 -                                                                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007