Appeal from patent interference proceeding in which priority was awarded to the senior party, based on a finding of the Board of Patent Interferences that tests conducted on the invention, an electric circuit breaker, were inadequate to demonstrate its utility as a circuit breaker. At issue was whether the tests proved an actual reduction to practice.
The Board found that the objective of the junior party’s circuit breaker project, which the invention was the subject of, was to provide a breaker for 600 volt, 800 ampere installations which could interrupt currents as high as 25,000 to 50,000 amperes. Since none of the junior party’s tests stimulated these conditions, the Board found no utility, and thus no reduction to practice. The board also found a “lack of conviction of success†and noted that “reclosureâ€, or reestablishing current flow, a necessary element of a circuit breaker, was never established. Id. at 1118.
The court affirmed the Board. While noting that the board “erred to the extent that it imposed specific voltage or current interruption requirements on the basis of the ultimate commercial . . . breaker sought,†the court found that “the counts define a current-limiting “circuit breaker,†and utility as a “circuit breaker†must be demonstrated by the tests for those tests to constitute a reduction to practice. The board found those tests inadequate to demonstrate such utility, and we are fully satisfied that its conclusion is free of error.†Id. at 1119.
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Tuesday 23 of September, 2008 13:32:48 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Tuesday 23 of September, 2008 13:32:48 GMT by Unknown