Interference No. 104,067
inventor must also prove that he constructed an embodiment or
performed a process that met all the limitations of the count.
Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1327, 47 USPQ2d at 1901; Newkirk, 825 F.2d at
1582, 3 USPQ2d at 1794. For completeness, we will examine
whether Kramp has shown that the embodiment relied on to
establish an actual reduction to practice met all the limitations
of the count.
Kramp argues that the disclosure document, including copies
of photographs attached thereto and a listing of "parts,"
establishes that a machine corresponding to the subject matter of
the count was made as early as December 23, 1992. See Brief,
pages 7-8.
Significantly, Kramp fails to show a correspondence between
the "parts" of the machine described in the disclosure document
and the limitations of the count. See Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1328,
47 USPQ2d at 1902 ("the physical embodiment relied upon as an
actual reduction to practice must include every limitation of the
count . . . . What this means is that, in order to rely an Dr.
Sharp's successful experiment as a reduction to practice, Cooper
was required to establish that Dr. Sharp's graft had fibril
lengths within the parameters of the count."). Furthermore, a
review by this panel appears to reveal that the machine does not
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007