States, 816 F.2d 647, 652, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
("[Tlhere cannot be a reduction to practice of the invention
. . . without a Physical embodiment which includes all
limitations of the claim.") (Emphasis added); and Corona Cord
Tire Co. v. Dovan Chem. Corp., 276 U.S. 358, 383 (1928); (A
process is reduced to practice when it is successfully performed.
A machine is reduced to practice when it is assembled, adjusted
and used. A manufacture is reduced to practice when it is
completely manufactured. A composition of matter is reduced to
practice when it is completely composed; quoted in Pfaff v. Wells
Electronics, Inc., 119 S.Ct. 304, 307 n.2 (1998)). Corroboration
of an actual reduction to practice is also required.
Hill's alleged actual reduction to practice fails for
several reasons. -First, the alleged actual reduction to practice
was not actually reduced. The description of the Hill manuscript
is not sufficient to demonstrate that the method of the count was
actually performed. "Unlike the filing of a patent application,
the publication of an article is not deemed a constructive
reduction to practice of the subject matter described therein."
In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454, 215 USPQ 14, 17(CCPA 1982).
Even further, Hill has failed to direct us to evidence of
corroboration of the testing allegedly performed as described in
the Hill manuscript. Lastly, Hill cannot rely on its activities
in Canada to demonstrate an actual reduction to practice in the
35
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007