Interference No. 101,981
27 F.3d 539, 30 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Parties have
raised issues regarding what is required to show conception and
actual reduction to practice.
Requirements For Establishing Conception Of The Count
Qadri raises two issues (QI1: QI1a; QI1b) to be considered
in determining whether a party has established conception in
their case for priority: 1) what structural details of the
superconductor composition are essential; and 2) what processing
steps are critical in making that composition. With respect to
the first issue, Qadri (QB 55) argues that conception “does not
require that every limitation in the counts must be exactly
foreseen,” Vanderkooi v. Hoeschele, 7 USPQ2d 1253, 1255 (Bd.Pat.
App. & Int. 1987). It is, Qadri argues, sufficient to have
developed a master plan and research results which would have
inevitably led to a reduction of the count (citing Lazo v. Tso,
480 F.2d 908, 178 USPQ 361 (CCPA 1973). With respect to the
second issue, Qadri argues that, in establishing conception,
“[o]ne must also know how to properly process the necessary
starting oxides” and indicates that proper calcination of the
starting materials (QB 53) and oxidation of the sintered material
(QB 51) are critical processing steps.
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007