Interference No. 104,067
photographs, Kramp has nonetheless failed to establish that the
machine worked for its intended purpo*se. As discussed above,
Kramp must show that the machine successfully reduced rubber tire
material havinQ metal stranding to a pulverulent form.
Based on the record before us, Kramp has failed to
demonstrate that the embodiment relied on to establish an actual
reduction to practice of the subject matter of the count worked
for its intended purpose. For this reason, Kramp has failed to
establish an actual reduction to practice of the subject matter
of the count.'
IV.
As discussed above, in order to establish an actual
reduction to practice of the subject matter of a count, an
8A reduction to practice must also be independently
corroborated. Mikus v. Wachtel, 542 F.2d 1157, 1159, 191 USPQ
571, 573 (CCPA 1976); see also Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222,
1228, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981) ("adoption of the 'rule of
reason' has not altered the requirement that evidence of
corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor himself").
Kramp relies on the testimony of Peter K. Trzyna and Leslie F.
Chard, III to corroborate the alleged actual reduction to
practice. See Trzyna affidavit dated January 28, 2000,
paragraphs 8 and 9; Chard affidavit dated January 28, 2000,
paragraphs 5 and 6. However, the evidence of record fails to
establish that either Mr. Trzyna or Mr. Chard saw the embodiment
at issue in operation. Therefore, Mr. Trzyna and/or Mr. Chard
cannot corroborate Kramp's alleged actual reduction to practice.
For this additional reason, Kramp has failed to establish an
actual reduction to practice of the subject matter of the count.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007