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. 12Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007