Interference No. 102,572
recombine in the refolding reaction to generate antigen binding activity”. Wetzel, ¶ 11 (CR-
20A).
VI.
The Boss et al. position
Boss et al. argue that Cabilly et al. have not established (A) prior conception or (B)
an actual reduction to practice of the subject matter of the count. Boss et al. argue that the
Cabilly et al. record is deficient because (1) there is no corroborated evidence of the
preparation and identification of the starting DNA sequences, the expression plasmids,
and the end product produced or verified dates for these activities; (2) there is no
corroboration of the inventor’s work; (3) the exhibits are unauthenticated as to author,
content and date and are mostly illegible, and not sufficiently explained; and (4) binding
activity does not establish a practical utility for the unidentified end product . Boss et al.
assert that the Cabilly et al. case for priority falls within the doctrine of simultaneous
conception and reduction to practice, citing Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157, 160, 45
USPQ 347, 348 (CCPA 1940); Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 894, 134 USPQ 296, 299
(CCPA 1962); Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18
USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 856 (1991); and Colbert v.
Lofdahl, 21 USPQ2d 1068, 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
VII.
BURDEN OF PROOF
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007