Ex Parte MEGY - Page 7




                154.F.3dl321,1327, 47USPQ2dl896,1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Determining that the invention will                                             
                work for its intended purpose may require testing, depending on the character of the invention and                                     
                the problem that it solves. CoU , 154 F.3d at 1327, 47 USPQ2d at1901. "The adequacy of a                                               
                reduction to practice is to be tested by what one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude from the                                 
                results of the tests." Slip Track, 304 F.3d at 1265, 64 USPQ2d at 1429 quotin Winter v. Lebourg,                                       
                394F.2d575,581,157USPQ574,578(CCPA1968). To prove reduction to practice by invpntor                                                    
                testimony, the inventor's testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. Slip Track, 304                                      
                F.3d at 1265, 64 USPQ2d at 1429; Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ2d at 1903. The                                                      
                corroboration "may consist of testimony of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual reduction                                  
                to practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of                                        
                information received from the inventor." Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032-33, 13 USPQ2d                                               
                1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA                                              
                198 1). When considering the sufficiency of corroborating evidence of an actual reduction to practice                                  
                a reasonableness standard is used. Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058,1061-62,32 USPQ2d 11115,1118                                          
                (Fed. Cir. 1994);HolmwoodN,. Supavanam, 94817.2d 1236,1238,20USPQ2d 1712,1714 (Fed. Cir.                                               
                1991).                                                                                                                                 
                         The count is the disjunction of Megy Claims 1, 17,35,44 or 45 and Heshmatpour Claim 21.                                       
                Thus, to prove an actual reduction to practice, Heshmatpour must prove that he carried out a process                                   
                for casting aluminum alloys that is covered by at least one of the alternatives of the count and that                                  
                that process worked for its intended purpose, i.e., resulted in a cast grain-refined aluminum alloy.                                   
                         The steps set forth in each count alternative are quite similar. Each alternative requires the                                
                following:                                                                                                                             
                         I . Providing molten aluminum;                                                                                                
                         2. Providing titanium to the molten aluminum alloy;                                                                           
                         3. Forming grain refining nuclei in the molten aluminum by introducing a gaseous                                              
                                  material which interacts with the titanium and includes boron, sulfur, nitrogen or                                   
                                  phosphorus; and                                                                                                      
                         4. Solidifying the molten alloy into a grain refined cast product.                                                            


                                                                       -7-                                                                             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007