Interference No. 102,572
extensive research or experimentation. Burroughs, 40 F.3d at 1230, 32 USPQ2d 1921.
Riggs’ testimony and exhibit are also deficient, in that there is no corroboration
independent of the inventor. Herein, no third party testified regarding receipt of CX-2.
For conception, Cabilly et al. also rely upon a conversation between Riggs and
Shively as to the Riggs’ proposal. We also do not find Riggs’ testimony that he discussed
the proposed project with Shively and Shively’s testimony that he recalled having some
conversations “regarding the cotransformation of E.coli with plasmids containing heavy
and light chain genes “ sufficient to establish corroborated conception of the count in this
interference. There is no testimony as to when and where this conversation took place,
who was present, and exactly what the conversation was and how such alleged
conversations satisfy all the limitations of the count. The testimony by both of these
witnesses regarding the alleged conversation is conclusory and it fails to explain how
Riggs’ discussion and corroborator's Shively’s vague recollection of some earlier
conversations establish a complete conception of the subject matter of the count. We find
Riggs' and Shively's oral testimony, given some nine years after an alleged conversation,
unsupported by any contemporaneous documentation or physical evidence, unreliable and
of little probative value.
Boss et al. urges in his brief, that this case is one which comes under the doctrine
of conception and simultaneous reduction to practice because of the unpredictability of the
technology. Smith, 111 F.2d at 160, 45 USPQ at 348; Alpert, 305 F.2d at 894, 134
50
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007