Tnterference No. 104,067
154 F.3d at 1327, 47 USPQ2d at 1901; Newkirk v. Lulelian,
825 F.2d 1581, 1582, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Depending on the complexity of the invention, testing may or
may not be necessary to establish that a particular invention ,
works for its intended purpose. The court has held that "[t1here
are some devices so simple that a mere construction of them is
all that is necessary to constitute a reduction to practice."
Sachs v. Wadsworth, 48 F.2d 928, 929, 9 USPQ 252, 254 (CCPA
1931). However, "reduction to practice of a complex mechanical
device . . . [requires] that the device was subjected to a test
under actual working conditions which demonstrated not that the
device might work, but that it actually did work." Chandler v.
Mocli, 150 F.2d 563, 565, 66 USPQ 209, 211 (CCPA 1945).
Similarly, the Court in Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601,
86 USPQ 373, 379 (CCPA 1950) explained:
To constitute an actual reduction to practice of a
machine, the device must be completed in an operative
form capable of successfully demonstrating its
practical utility in its intended field of use . . . .
Unless the device is of such a nature that by its very
simplicity its practical operativeness is manifest,
. . . the machine must be tested under actual working
conditions . . . . in such a way as to demonstrate its
practical utility for its intended purpose. . . .
beyond probability of failure . . . . Actual
performance is required of the function for which the
machine is intended with a quality, extent, and
character of operation sufficient to indicate its
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007