(2) Evidence provided by Furman indicates that the Furman inventors did not know
the structural identities of the Liotta samples at the time they were said to have discussed sending
the samples for HBV testing. (FFs 241, 24J and 33C). For conception to exist the inventTs idea
must include every feature of the claimed invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754F.2dat359,224
USPQ at 862. For example, for conception of a chemical compound, the idea of the structure of
the compound is required. Oka v. Yousse.fyeh, 849 F.2d 581, 583, 7 USPQ2d 1169, 1171
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
The 1989 discussion:
Furman has not argued or otherwise shown that the Furman inventors conceived the
invention prior to July of 1990. For example, Furman does not contend that the Furman
inventors conceived the invention in 1989 when, according to Dr. Furman's testimony, the
Furman inventors discussed sending BCH- 189 for anti-HBV testing ("the 1989 discussion"). (FF
24D). Even if Furman did rely upon Dr. Furman's testimony regarding the 1989 discussion for
conception, Fur-man has not directed us to evidence that corroborates Dr. Furman's testimony
regarding the discussion. An inventor must prove his conception by corroborating evidence,
preferably by a showing of contemporaneous disclosure. Burroughs Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1228,
32 USPQ2d at 1919.
Dr. Korba's testinz.
Furman could argue that the Furman inventors conceived the invention based on the
testing and results obtained by Dr. Korba. (FF 50-55). However, as discussed further in ra,
Furman has not shown that either of the Furman inventors himself requested anti-HBV testing of
BCH- 189 or that either of the Furman inventors ever learned of Dr. Korba's results.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007