Facts and Documentary Evidence

[Editor Note: This MPEP section is

not applicable

to applications

subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon

to overcome a rejection under

pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)

. See

35

U.S.C. 100 (note)

and

MPEP §

2159

. For a discussion of

37 CFR 1.130

,

affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications

subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see

MPEP §

717

. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under

37 CFR

1.131(c)

, see

MPEP § 718

.]

I.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The essential thing to be shown under

37 CFR

1.131(a)

is priority of invention and this may be done by any

satisfactory evidence of the fact. FACTS, not conclusions, must be alleged. Evidence

in the form of exhibits may accompany the affidavit or declaration. Each exhibit

relied upon should be specifically referred to in the affidavit or declaration, in

terms of what it is relied upon to show. For example, the allegations of fact might

be supported by submitting as evidence one or more of the following:

(A) attached sketches;

(B) attached blueprints;

(C) attached photographs;

(D) attached reproductions of notebook entries;

(E) an accompanying model;

(F) attached supporting statements by witnesses, where verbal

disclosures are the evidence relied upon.

Ex parte

Ovshinsky

, 10 USPQ2d 1075 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989);

(G) testimony given in an interference. Where interference

testimony is used, the applicant must point out which parts of the testimony

are being relied on; examiners cannot be expected to search the entire

interference record for the evidence;

(H) documents submitted under the Disclosure Document Program

(discontinued February 1, 2007) may be used as documentary evidence of

conception.

Exhibits and models must comply with the requirements of

37 CFR

1.91

to be entered into an application file. See also

MPEP §

715.07(d)

.

A general allegation that the invention was completed prior to the

date of the reference is not sufficient

e evidence;

(H) documents submitted under the Disclosure Document Program

(discontinued February 1, 2007) may be used as documentary evidence of

conception.

Exhibits and models must comply with the requirements of

37 CFR

1.91

to be entered into an application file. See also

MPEP §

715.07(d)

.

A general allegation that the invention was completed prior to the

date of the reference is not sufficient. Similarly, a declaration by the inventor to

the effect that their invention was conceived or reduced to practice prior to the

reference date, without a statement of facts demonstrating the correctness of this

conclusion, is insufficient to satisfy

37 CFR 1.131(a)

. “An inventor

cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date.”

In re NTP, Inc.

, 654 F.3d 1279, 1291, 99 USPQ2d 1481, 1488

(Fed. Cir. 2011).

"When the issue of priority concerns the antedating

of a reference, the applicant is required to demonstrate, with sufficient

documentation, that the [inventor] was in possession of the later-claimed

invention before the effective date of the reference. Demonstration of such

priority requires documentary support, from which factual findings and inferences

are drawn, in application of the rules and law of conception, reduction to

practice, and diligence."

In re Steed

, 802 F.3d 1311, 1316,

116 USPQ2d 1760 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

37 CFR

1.131(b)

requires that original exhibits of drawings or

records, or photocopies thereof, accompany and form part of the affidavit or

declaration or their absence satisfactorily explained. In

Ex parte

Donovan,

1890 C.D. 109, 52 OG 309 (Comm’r Pat. 1890) the court

stated:

If the [inventor] made sketches he should so state, and produce

and describe them; if the sketches were made and lost, and their contents

remembered, they should be reproduced and furnished in place of the originals. The

same course should be pursued if the disclosure was by means of models

satisfactorily explained. In

Ex parte

Donovan,

1890 C.D. 109, 52 OG 309 (Comm’r Pat. 1890) the court

stated:

If the [inventor] made sketches he should so state, and produce

and describe them; if the sketches were made and lost, and their contents

remembered, they should be reproduced and furnished in place of the originals. The

same course should be pursued if the disclosure was by means of models. If neither

sketches nor models are relied upon, but it is claimed that verbal disclosures,

sufficiently clear to indicate definite conception of the invention, were made the

witness should state as nearly as possible the language used in imparting

knowledge of the invention to others.

When reviewing a

37 CFR 1.131(a)

affidavit or

declaration, the examiner must consider all of the evidence presented in its

entirety, including the affidavits or declarations and all accompanying exhibits,

records and “notes.” An accompanying exhibit need not support all claimed

limitations, provided that any missing limitation is supported by the declaration

itself.

Ex parte Ovshinsky,

10 USPQ2d 1075 (Bd. Pat. App. &

Inter. 1989).

The affidavit or declaration and exhibits must clearly explain which

facts or data applicant is relying on to show completion of the inventor's invention

prior to the particular date. Specifically, “[t]he burden of showing actual reduction

of practice is on the party seeking its benefit.”

In re Steed

, 802

F.3d 1311, 1317-18, 116 USPQ2d 1760 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(citing to

In re NTP,

Inc.

, 654 F.3d 1279, 1291, 99 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Vague

and general statements in broad terms about what the exhibits describe along with a

general assertion that the exhibits describe a reduction to practice “amounts

essentially to mere pleading, unsupported by proof or a showing of facts” and, thus,

does not satisfy the requirements of

37 CFR 1.131(b)

.

In re

Borkowski,

505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974)

USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Vague

and general statements in broad terms about what the exhibits describe along with a

general assertion that the exhibits describe a reduction to practice “amounts

essentially to mere pleading, unsupported by proof or a showing of facts” and, thus,

does not satisfy the requirements of

37 CFR 1.131(b)

.

In re

Borkowski,

505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974). Applicant must give a

clear explanation of the exhibits pointing out exactly what facts are established and

relied on by applicant. 505 F.2d at 718-19, 184 USPQ at 33. See also

In re

Harry,

333 F.2d 920, 142 USPQ 164 (CCPA 1964) (Affidavit “asserts that

facts exist but does not tell what they are or when they occurred.”).

II.

ESTABLISHMENT OF DATES

If the dates of the exhibits have been removed or blocked off, the

matter of dates can be taken care of in the body of the oath or declaration.

When alleging that conception or a reduction to practice occurred

prior to the effective date of the reference, the dates in the oath or declaration

may be the actual dates or, if disclosure of the actual dates is not desired, the

declarant/affiant may merely allege that the acts referred to occurred prior to a

specified date. However, the actual dates of acts relied on to establish diligence

must be provided. See

MPEP § 715.07(a)

regarding the diligence requirement.

III.

THREE WAYS TO SHOW PRIOR INVENTION

The affidavit or declaration must state FACTS and produce such

documentary evidence and exhibits in support thereof as are available to show

conception and completion of invention in this country or in a NAFTA or WTO member

country (

MPEP

§ 715.07(c)

), at least the conception being at a date prior

to the effective date of the reference

iligence requirement.

III.

THREE WAYS TO SHOW PRIOR INVENTION

The affidavit or declaration must state FACTS and produce such

documentary evidence and exhibits in support thereof as are available to show

conception and completion of invention in this country or in a NAFTA or WTO member

country (

MPEP

§ 715.07(c)

), at least the conception being at a date prior

to the effective date of the reference. Where there has not been reduction to

practice prior to the date of the reference, diligence in the completion of the

invention from a time just prior to the date of the reference continuously up to the

date of an actual reduction to practice or up to the date of filing the application

(filing constitutes a constructive reduction to practice,

37 CFR

1.131

) must be shown.

As discussed above,

37 CFR 1.131(b)

provides three

ways in which an applicant can establish prior invention of the claimed subject

matter. The showing of facts must be sufficient to show:

(A) actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the

effective date of the reference; or

(B) conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the

reference coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to a

subsequent actual reduction to practice; or

(C) conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the

reference coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to the

filing date of the application (constructive reduction to practice).

A conception of an invention, though evidenced by disclosure,

drawings, and even a model, is not a complete invention under the patent laws, and

confers no rights on an inventor, and has no effect on a subsequently granted patent

to another, UNLESS THE INVENTOR FOLLOWS IT WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE BY SOME OTHER

ACT, such as an actual reduction to practice or filing an application for a patent.

Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp.,

166 F.2d

288, 1909 C.D. 498, 139 OG 991 (1st Cir. 1909)

invention under the patent laws, and

confers no rights on an inventor, and has no effect on a subsequently granted patent

to another, UNLESS THE INVENTOR FOLLOWS IT WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE BY SOME OTHER

ACT, such as an actual reduction to practice or filing an application for a patent.

Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp.,

166 F.2d

288, 1909 C.D. 498, 139 OG 991 (1st Cir. 1909).

Conception is the mental part of the inventive act, but it must be

capable of proof, as by drawings, complete disclosure to another person, etc. In

Mergenthaler v. Scudder,

1897 C.D. 724, 81 OG 1417 (D.C. Cir.

1897), it was established that conception is more than a mere vague idea of how to

solve a problem; the means themselves and their interaction must be comprehended

also.

In general, proof of actual reduction to practice requires a showing

that the apparatus actually existed and worked for its intended purpose. However,

“there are some devices so simple that a mere construction of them is all that is

necessary to constitute reduction to practice.”

In re Asahi/America

Inc.,

68 F.3d 442, 37 USPQ2d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing

Newkirk v. Lulejian,

825 F.2d 1581, 3USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir.

1987) and

Sachs v. Wadsworth,

48 F.2d 928, 929, 9 USPQ 252, 253

(CCPA 1931). The claimed restraint coupling was held to be so simple a device that

mere construction of it was sufficient to constitute reduction to practice.

Photographs, coupled with articles and a technical report describing the coupling in

detail were sufficient to show reduction to practice.).

The facts to be established under

37 CFR

1.131(a)

are similar to those to be proved in interference. The

difference lies in the way in which the evidence is presented. If applicant disagrees

with a holding that the facts are insufficient to overcome the rejection, the remedy

is by appeal from the continued rejection.

See

MPEP § 2138.04

through

§ 2138.06

for a

detailed discussion of the concepts of conception, reasonable diligence, and

reduction to practice

r to those to be proved in interference. The

difference lies in the way in which the evidence is presented. If applicant disagrees

with a holding that the facts are insufficient to overcome the rejection, the remedy

is by appeal from the continued rejection.

See

MPEP § 2138.04

through

§ 2138.06

for a

detailed discussion of the concepts of conception, reasonable diligence, and

reduction to practice.

For the most part, the terms “conception,” “reasonable diligence,”

and “reduction to practice” have the same meanings under

37 CFR

1.131(a)

as they have in interference proceedings. However, in

In re Eickmeyer,

602 F.2d 974, 202 USPQ 655 (CCPA 1979), the

court stated:

The purpose of filing a [37 CFR 1.]131 affidavit is not to

demonstrate prior invention,

per se

, but merely to antedate the

effective date of a reference. See

In re Moore,

58 CCPA 1340,

444 F.2d 572, 170 USPQ 260 (1971). Although the test for sufficiency of an

affidavit under Rule 131(b) parallels that for determining priority of invention

in an interference under

pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)

, it

does not necessarily follow that Rule 131 practice is controlled by interference

law. To the contrary, “[t]he parallel to interference practice found in Rule

131(b) should be recognized as one of convenience rather than necessity.”

Id.

at 1353, 444 F.2d at 580, 170 USPQ at 267. Thus, “the

‘conception’ and ‘reduction to practice’ which must be established under the rule

need not be the same as what is required in the ‘interference’ sense of those

terms.”

Id.;

accord,

In re Borkowski,

505

F.2d 713, 718-19, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974).

One difference is that in interference practice a reduction to

practice requires a proof that a utility was known, whereas under

37 CFR

1.131(a)

practice, proof of a utility must be shown only if the

reference discloses a utility.

In re Wilkinson,

304 F.2d 673,

134 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1962);

In re Moore,

444 F.2d 572, 170 USPQ 260

(CCPA 1971)

orkowski,

505

F.2d 713, 718-19, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974).

One difference is that in interference practice a reduction to

practice requires a proof that a utility was known, whereas under

37 CFR

1.131(a)

practice, proof of a utility must be shown only if the

reference discloses a utility.

In re Wilkinson,

304 F.2d 673,

134 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1962);

In re Moore,

444 F.2d 572, 170 USPQ 260

(CCPA 1971). Where proof of utility is required, whether or not test results are

required to establish the utility of the subject matter in question depends on the

facts of each case. The ultimate issue is whether the evidence is such that one of

ordinary skill in the art would be satisfied to a reasonable certainty that the

subject matter necessary to antedate the reference possessed the alleged utility.

In re Blake,

358 F.2d 750, 149 USPQ 217 (CCPA 1966). Also, in

interference practice, conception, reasonable diligence, and reduction to practice

require corroboration, whereas averments made in a

37 CFR

1.131(a)

affidavit or declaration do not require corroboration;

an applicant may stand on their own affidavit or declaration if they so elect.

Ex parte Hook,

102 USPQ 130 (Bd. App. 1953).

Form paragraph

7.59.fti

or

7.63.fti

(both reproduced in

MPEP § 715

) may be

used where insufficient evidence is included in a

37 CFR

1.131(a)

affidavit.