Interference No. 103,270
the various components so that the method could be carried
out. Certainly, such selection of appropriate dimensions
could not be denominated as "extensive research or
experimentation."
Finally, Keith et al. argue that "[b]ecause Senior
Party Coelho has failed to prove conception of the method of
Count 2, an ordinary skilled mechanic could not have corrected
the apparatus shown in [CX] 65-66 without the exercise of
inventive ingenuity" (KOB-94). However, since we have held
above that Coelho has proved conception of the method of count
2, the premise on which this argument is based fails. The
question is not whether one of ordinary skill would have found
the method of count 2 obvious from the apparatus disclosed in
CX-65 and 66, but whether, in view of Coelho's conception of
the method, as corroborated by Enger, one of ordinary skill
would have found it obvious to design the required apparatus
(to be used in conjunction with that shown in CX-65 or 66) to
such parameters as to enable the method to be carried out.
This latter question we have answered in the affirmative.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Coelho
conceived the method defined in count 2 by December 2, 1988.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007