probative value. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 553 F.2d 69, 75, 193 USPQ
449, 455 (Cl. Ct. 1977).
In addition, there is not enough detail in either the Schramm testimony or the
Thompson statement regarding the features of the blade tested or seen to prove that the
blade tested or seen had all the elements of the inventions of counts 1 and 2. The use
of the phrases "every key aspects" and "no significant structural difference" do not
establish that the thing viewed or tested had all of the elements of the count. When this
evidence is viewed together, it is just not clear what either Schramm saw or what the
Thompson document refers to. A prototype must be shown to meet all the limitations of
the count in order to constitute reduction to practice. Cooper v. Goldfarb 154 F.3d
1321. 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
As Mr. Schramm testifies that he viewed prototype blades and drawings of
blades, it is not clear whether he is referring to actual blades or drawings of blades when
he states that there was no significant structural difference between the "designs" he
saw and the blade of the '700 blade.
Bernardy's testimony regarding when the invention of the counts was reduced to
practice introduces further confusion regarding the reduction to practice. At one point,
he states that he reduced the invention to practice in late 1996 (Powell Record page
168). At another point, he says it was late fall of 1996 (Powell Record page 170) and at
another point he indicates that it was August or September of 1996 (Powell Record page
170).
-26-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007