Patent Interference No. 103,812
II.
A party establishing an actual reduction to practice of the subject matter of a count must
show a reduction to practice of each and every limitation of the count. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154
F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581,
1582, 3 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A process is reduced to practice when each step
is successfully performed and the product produced by the process is satisfactory for its intended
use. See Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1327, 47 USPQ2d at 1901; Hess v. Bland, 347 F.2d 835, 841, 146
USPQ 378, 382 (CCPA 1965).
Where, as here, the count embraces several embodiments, a reduction to practice of one
embodiment within the scope of the count constitutes a reduction to practice of the invention
defined by the count for purposes of priority of invention in an interference proceeding. Cf.
Breuer v. DeMarinis, 558 F.2d 22, 24 n. 5, 194 USPQ 308, 309 n.5 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, an actual reduction to practice must be independently corroborated. Mikus
v. Wachtel, 542 F.2d 1157, 1159, 191 USPQ 571, 573 (CCPA 1976); Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d
1222, 1225, 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").
Although each and every element of the count must be corroborated, there is no single, fixed
corroboration formula. Mikus, 542 F.2d at 1159, 191 USPQ at 573. Independent corroboration
may consist of the testimony of witnesses, other than the inventor, to the actual reduction to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007