Interference No. 104,290
basic invention, which showing will also suffice as to claims
differing therefrom only in details which are obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 1178,
182 USPQ 614, 620 (CCPA 1974). Furthermore, LeVeen does not have
to show corroboration for the acts relied on with respect to a
showing under 37 CFR § 1.131. Ex parte Hook, 102 USPQ 130 (Bd.
App. 1953).
However, it is unnecessary for us to make new detailed
findings with regard to the case under 37 CFR § 1.131, inasmuch
as it is clear that the record does not support a conclusion that
the invention of LeVeen claims 43 and 44 was reduced to practice
before the critical date. Inasmuch as the Edwards specification
taken as prior art discloses an intended purpose and functional
setting for the invention, it was incumbent upon LeVeen to show a
reduction to practice of the subject matter of his claims for
their intended purpose.
As established by our factual findings, above, not
all limitations of the claim were reduced to practice. We have
construed the claim limitation of "selected mass" to mean a
preselected mass, exactly as we have construed this limitation in
the count. There is no evidence that any area in the explanted
33
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007