Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 17
not establish that Ichinose and Davie actually conducted the work described in the
articles.
Regarding the declarations of non-inventors Fujikawa, Hendrickson and McMullen,
these declarations state that, while Fujikawa, Hendrickson and McMullen are listed as
authors of the articles, their contributions were limited to editorial changes. They also
repeat statements made in the Davie declaration relative to work done “[i]n generating
the subject matter of the article.” The former statements may be useful in determining
who was responsible for writing the articles but not whether an embodiment of the
invention was actually prepared. The latter statements shed no further light on the
question.
The absence of any objective evidence showing that Davie actually prepared an
embodiment of the count prior to Grundmann’s undisputed priority date of June 26,
1986, leads to our finding that prong (1) (a) of the test for determining an actual
reduction to practice has not been satisfied. We need not address the other elements of
the test. Suffice it to say that Davie nowhere explains how its publications and
declarations establish that an invention defined by the count was prepared and suitable
for its intended use. Davie has not met its burden of proving an earlier date of invention
on the grounds that it actually reduced the invention to practice prior to June 26, 1986.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007