Interference No. 102,572
II.
Conception
We find that the Cabilly et al. record does not establish a complete conception of
the count in issue prior to the March 25, 1983, date accorded to Boss et al. Without an
earlier conception than the date accorded Boss et al., the issue of reasonable diligence by
the inventors to a reduction to practice is moot and the evidence relating to diligence has
not been considered herein.
. Conception is a question of law. Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1449, 41
USPQ2d 1686, 1688-1689 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d at 542, 30
USPQ2d at 1864; and Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1168-1169, 25 USPQ2d 1601,
1604 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Conception is defined as the formation “in the mind of the inventor
of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter
to be applied in practice.” Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at
1376, 231 USPQ at 87-88 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987) ( citing 1
Robinson on Patents 532 (1890), Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862; (quoting
Gunter v. Stream, 573 F.2d 77, 80, 197 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1978)). By this definition,
conception consists of two parts, the idea and the means to carry out the idea.
(...continued)
(4) what the DNA sequence analysis results of the individual transformants were, what
product was produced on expression, what product was produced after refolding, and
whether there was utility testing for the product.
47
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007