Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 15
As best we understand Davie’s arguments15, the two articles are relied upon to prove
that the alleged reductions to practice took place as of their publication dates and the
declarations are relied upon to support Davie’s contention that inventors Davie and
Ichinose alone did the work described in the articles.
The articles are not direct evidence of actual reductions to practice. Authorship is
not the same as inventorship. The issue is not whether Davie wrote about the invention
and published information about the invention. The issue is whether Davie actually
reduced an embodiment of the invention to practice. The fact that (some of) the
applicants are also listed as authors on articles published prior to June 26, 1986, which
articles happen to describe the invention, does not demonstrate that the applicants
themselves actually reduced the invention to practice at that time. We agree with
Grundmann (brief, p. 13) that “[t]hese articles, however, cannot of themselves prove
that the experimental work alleged therein was actually done.”
The declarations are similarly deficient.
15 Davie’s brief does not exactly discuss an “actual reduction to practice” but we assume, nevertheless,
that Davie is making the argument. Davie’s brief focuses mainly on demonstrating the invention was
simultaneously conceived and reduced to practice, with much of the discussion directed to conception
and corroboration of reduction to practice, which we analyze later in the opinion. However, Davie does
allege that it has reduced the invention to practice. Davie has limited its options for establishing a case for
priority to showing that it actually reduced the invention to practice prior to June 26, 1986. We assume
therefore that Davie is making an effort to argue that it actually reduced the invention to practice prior to
June 26, 1986.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007