10-9: Ted continued work on setting up the system, gas line, [illegible],
9 weighed Al - loaded and fired furnace = 11:00 AM.
Bought lunch for Ted to stay with work during lunch
1:00 PM Al all melted. Started test with several consecutive injection
of chloride TiCl4 and C2Cl4 - pulled several TP-1 samples. Wrote
report on test.
This evidence fails to prove an actual reduction to practice of an embodiment meeting all
the limitations of at least one of the alternatives of the count and that the process worked for its
intended purpose.
First, Dr. Heshmatpour's testimony is not corroborated by independent evidence, i.e.,
evidence which is independent of his own testimony. He has not directed us to testimony of a
witness who observed the tests or to evidence of facts and circumstances surrounding the reduction
to practice which were independent of information which originated with Dr. Heshmatpour.
Secondly, the evidence presented does not establish that Dr. Heshmatpour actually carried
out a process meeting all the limitations of at least one of the count alternatives. The alleged actual
reduction to practice relies on the Use Of C2C14 t6introduce a material reactive with titanium. Only
the count alternative of Heshmatpour Claim 21 allows the use of a carbon containing material. Thus,
in order to constitute an actual reduction to practice the process must meet all the limitations of Dr.
Heshmatpour's Claim 21. Claim 21 requires providing 1-200,000 ppm of titanium in the molten
aluminum. Dr. Heshmatpour's evidence fails to establish the amount of titanium provided to the
molten aluminum.
Lastly, and more importantly, the evidence does not establish that the treatment worked for
its specified and intended purpose -forming a grain refined aluminum casting. While the evidence
indicates samples were sent to Touchstone Research Laboratory for analysis and Dr. Heshmatpour
states that test samples verified the success of the process (Paper 55, p. 3) results of that analysis
were not presented. The fact that Dr. Heshmatpour may not have had access to the results does not
relieve him of his burden of proving that the activities said to be an actual reduction to practice
included all the limitations of the count and that the invention worked for its intended purpose.
Dr. Heshmatpour has failed to prove an actual reduction to practice before Megy's effective
filing date.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007