Constructive reduction to practice

After conceiving the invention, the inventor s next step is to reduce the invention to practice. A reduction to practice can be a constructive reduction to practice, which occurs when a patent application is filed. It can, however, also be an actual reduction to practice, which is the physical realization of the invention. For instance, in the case of a composition it includes the actual making thereof. With regard to aprocess, it includes the actual carrying out of the steps of the process. The determination that the invention will work for its intended purpose is usually also necessary. 

Let s review the law to see if the patent attorney should be so confident. In our discussion of section 102(a), we learned that prior invention could be proved by a reduction to practice before the reference date or a conception before a reference date followed by a period of due diligence until the actual or constructive reduction to practice. In the case of Chemist A, there was an actual reduction to practice that occurred when Chemist A synthesized the pigment and showed that it worked for its intended purpose, which occurred on September 26, 2007. The filing of the patent application is a constructive reduction to practice and would serve as a reduction to practice had an actual reduction to practice not occurred first. To use the conception date, however, Chemist A will need to show that he was diligent from the conception date to the date of the reduction to practice. If he is not able to show due diligence from the conception date to the reduction to practice, he will not be able to mark the conception date as the date of the invention. Instead, the date of the invention is... 

There are two questions we will explore for this scenario. First, on what date (or dates) was the chemist s reduction to practice and were they actual or constructive reductions to practice Second, what date(s) of invention can the chemist establish for each of the claims ... 

As we already learned, reduction to practice can be actual or constructive. Actual reduction to practice refers to the production of the invention in a physical, tangible form that contains every element of the claim corresponding to that invention.28 Furthermore, an actual reduction to practice requires that the invention has been sufficiently tested to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose. In contrast, a constructive reduction to practice means that the invention is described in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation, even though an actual working example has not been prepared— perhaps a well-detailed scheme or drawing is sufficient. In this case, one does not actually need to physically make the invention. A constructive reduction to practice normally occurs on the filing of a patent application since the patent application must, to be valid, provide sufficient instruction to allow one of ordinary skill ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation in the same way as a constructive reduction to practice requires. 

In Chapter 2 we learned that the filing of a U.S. patent application serves as a constructive reduction to practice as of the date that the application is filed. However, we also learned that the patent application as filed needed to satisfy the requirements of 112 f 1. Similarly we learned that an applicant is awarded a priority date as of their date of filing the patent application, but this assumes that the filed patent application satisfies the requirements of 112 f 1 as well. This means that the value of the patent application to the patentee is largely premised on the ability of the patentee to fulfill the requirements of 112 f 1. 

Besides doubt about the inventiveness of these patent applications, there appears to be a lack of utility (a new technical teaching) of the claimed subject matter. The utility for such a vast number of cDNA sequences will most likely be based upon theoretical examples without a constructive reduction to practice. There is hardly any doubt that the intention is to use the given examples of utility to fulfil a requirement only formally but to claim patent rights on all potential utilities. 

Generally, in the United States, the party who is first to "reduce an invention to practice" is given priority and awarded the patent, unless another party who reduced the invention to practice at a later date can prove that he or she was the first to conceive the invention and worked diligently to reduce it to practice from a time before the other party s date of conception (13). Reduction to practice may be an "actual reduction to practice" (physically making or carrying out the invention) or a "constructive reduction to practice" (filing a patent application). Therefore, in the United States, at least in theory, the filing date of an... 

The mere act of filing an application containing such examples constitutes what patent lawyers call a constructive reduction to practice. The resulting grants are knovm as paper patents, which an inventor may later have to defend with the results of authentic experiments. WeU composed paper examples therefore do not include numerical values of physical properties that are difficult or impossible to predict melting points, for example, or optical rotations. They use the present tense, and reserve the past tense for genuine examples, a convention that not all patents honor. 

Hercules was eliminated from the interference in 1964 by the US Patent Office because of their late discovery and patent application date. Finally (it seemed), on 29 November 1971, the board finally awarded priority of invention to the senior party, Natta et al., and US Patent No. 3,715,344 was issued to Montedison on 6 February 1973. The defeated parties then appealed the decision with a Civil Action (US District Court of the District of Delaware, Civil Action 4319). In these 1980 hearings, it was concluded that Phillips was entitled to an invention date of no later than 27 January 1953. The district court also determined that Phillips had proved that Montedison had fraudulently withheld information from Patent Office examiners, and that this fraud was detrimental to Phillips case for priority of invention in the Patent Office . However, because of the conclusion that Phillips is entitied to priority on the basis of its constructive reduction to practice, the issue of Montedison s fraud would have no effect on Phiffips entitlement to priority. Therefore, the court found ffiat the crystalline polypropylene of the interference count was useful, novel, and non-obvious and therefore patentable to Phillips and... 

There is a legal alternative known as constructive reduction to practice which consists of the act of filing a patent application. 

The application of natural zeolites in the field of cement manufacture is destined to grow in the next years. In fact, the next revolution in materials of construction is to go back to the past. The current concrete construction practice is reportedly unsustainable, because the present production of about 1.7 x 109 tpy portland cement has a not negligible environmental impact from standpoint of energy consumption and global warming. So, the expected trend in the concrete industry in the next years is to recur to ancient practices, such as that to re-usc the Roman concretes. This would increase the resort to raw, recycled and waste materials, enabling cost reduction and manufacture of environment-friendly products [117,118]. 

In addition, they are usually constructed without isolation valves on the fuel supply lines. As a result the final connection in the pipework cannot be leak-tested. In practice, it is tested as far as possible at the manufacturer s works but often not leak-tested on-site. Reference 32 reviews the fuel leaks that have occurred, including a major explosion at a CCGT plant in England in 1996 due to the explosion of a leak of naphtha from a pipe joint. One man was seriously injured, and a 600-m chamber was lifted off its foundations. The reference also reviews the precautions that should be taken. They include. selecting a site where noise reduction is not required or can be achieved w ithout enclosure. If enclosure is essential, then a high ventilation rate is needed it is often designed to keep the turbine cool and is far too low to disperse gas leaks. Care must be taken to avoid stagnant pockets. 

The theoretical maximum suction lift at sea level for water (14.7 psi) (2.31 fi/psi) = 34 ft. However, due to flow resistance, this value is never attainable. For safety, 15 feet is considered the practical limit, although some pumps will lift somewhat higher columns of water. WTen sealing a vacuum condition above a pump, or the pump pumps from a vessel, a seal allowance to atmosphere is almost always taken as 34 feet of water. High suction lift causes a reduction in pump capacity, noisy operation due to release of air and vapor bubbles, vibration and erosion, or pitting (cavitation) of the impeller and some parts of the casing. (The extent of the damage depends on the materials of construction.)... 

---