Interference No. 104,067
utility in the environment in which it is contemplated
to be useful. [Citations omitted.]
Based on the complexity of the tire grinding apparatus at
issue, which is intended to reduce rubber tire material having
metal stranding to a pulverulent form, we find that the apparatus
is not so simple that its mere construction demonstrates its
workability. Therefore, junior party Kramp must show that the
embodiment relied upon as evidence of an actual reduction to
practice was tested and that it worked for its intended purpose,
i.e., reducing rubber tire material having metal stranding to a
pulverulent form. Compare Campbell v. Wettstein, 476 F.2d 642,
646-47, 177 USPQ 376, 379 (CCLDA 1973) (where the interference
counts contain no limitation relating to intended use, evidence
establishing substantial utility for any purpose is sufficient to
show reduction to practice).
Junior party Kramp does not appear to dispute that testing
is necessary in this case. Rather, Kramp argues that photographs
attached to the disclosure document show that a machine
corresponding to the subject matter of the count was tested and
that it worked for its intended purpose. See Brief, page 8.
The photographs appear to show various views of a machine by
itself or in combination with a quantity of material. It is
impossible to tell from the photographs alone (1) whether the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007