in the junior party’s principal brief. It is appropriate, therefore, for us to decline to consider these
arguments. Suh, 23 USPQ2d at 1323-24.
Taking this view, we hold that Engvall has failed to prove that there was a contemporaneous
appreciation and recognition of the affinity constants used in the alleged actual reductions to practice.
Engvall, therefore, has not proved an actual reduction to practice of an embodiment meeting all the
limitations of the count prior to August 4, 1980
In any event, our review of the matters raised in Engvall’s reply brief indicates that we would
not reach a different conclusion with respect to Engvall’s alleged actual reduction to practice.
Engvall refers to pages 54 to 61 of her principal brief as setting out the facts and law
demonstrating actual reductions to practice. Engvall Reply Brief, p. 51-64. However, that section
of Engvall’s brief does not address the affinity constant of the antibodies used in the alleged actual
reductions.
With respect to the assertions that the Engvall inventors knew antibodies 50/3, 73/3, and 73/8
had “high affinity” comparable to clinically used polyclonals antibodies to AFP, (said to be at least
3.3x10 liters per mole) (Engvall Reply Brief, p. 26), Engvall has not directed us to any evidence,8
which corroborates that “high affinity” meant comparable to 3.3x10 liters per mole. Corroboration8
"may consist of testimony of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual reduction to practice or
it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of information
received from the inventor." Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032-33, 13 USPQ2d at 1317; Reese, 661 F.2d at
1225, 211 USPQ at 940. All of the evidence referred to relating to alleged contemporaneous
knowledge of the affinity constants (pages 25 to 28 of the Reply Brief) are statements and documents
of the inventors. There is no evidence independent of the inventor’s information. Engvall elsewhere
in the reply brief points to Holbeck’s and Hayman’s testimony, relied upon to corroborate conception
of the use of “high affinity” antibodies (Engvall reply brief, p. 17, note 16). However, as discussed
at page 43 of this opinion, their testimony does not indicate that they understood “high affinity” to
mean at least 3.3x10 liters per mole or an affinity constant comparable to clinically used polyclonal8
AFP antibodies. Their testimony indicates only that they were aware that “high affinity” monoclonal
antibodies were desired. Their testimony did not relate “high affinity” to any particular affinity
53
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007