BAI et al v. LAIKO et al - Page 27




                Interference No. 104,745                                                                                                 

                order to prove the apparatus's suitability for that purpose.  It is sufficient if the tests demonstrated                 
                the capability of the AP-MALDI apparatus to generate and transport sufficient analyte ions to                            
                such a mass spectrometer.  See  DSL, 928 F.2d at 1125, 18 USPQ2d at 1154 ("tests performed                               
                outside the intended environment can be sufficient to show reduction to practice if the testing                          
                conditions are sufficiently similar to those of the intended environment.  Tomecek v. Stimpson,                          
                513 F.2d 614, 618, 185 USPQ 235, 239 (CCPA 1975).").  The fact that Bai's 23 December test                               
                did not yield a mass spectrum of the analyte material therefore is not dispositive, as Laiko                             
                contends.                                                                                                                
                        Turning now to the evidence, Fischer testified that                                                              
                        [b]ecause the matrix signal acquired on December 19, 1997 was relatively weak,                                   
                        we wanted to collect the data in a mode that would maximize the sensitivity and                                  
                        confirm that [the] signal generated from a matrix-analyte mixture was the analyte                                
                        and not an artifact or background.  Thus, we needed software that could collect                                  
                        data at a rate faster than 20 Hz.                                                                                
                Fischer Decl. (BX 204) ¶ 46.22  Erik Reinecke, a coworker in HP's research and development                               
                organization who at that time was primarily responsible for the internal hardware and software                           
                support for over forty LC and GC (gas chromatography) systems, was approached for a solution.                            
                Id.; Reinecke Decl. (BX 2042) ¶¶ 2, 8.  Reinecke explained that                                                          



                22  The inventors' testimony and exhibits relied on as proof of the alleged 23 December 1997                             
                actual reduction to practice are not challenged by Laiko as lacking the necessary corroboration.                         
                See Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335, 61 USPQ2d 1236, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2002)                                        
                ("[I]ndependent evidence (evidence or physical evidence from a source other than [inventor] Dr.                          
                Reiss) must corroborate Dr. Reiss' testimony to show an actual reduction to practice.").                                 
                However, the testimony and exhibits relating to the alleged 20 January 1998 actual reduction to                          
                practice are challenged on that ground.                                                                                  
                                                                 - 27 -                                                                  





Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007