Interference No. 101,981
and reduction to practice. Id. at 1021. The determining factor in establishing conception of the
count is not whether a party has verified what they have produced or that they simultaneously
reduced to practice the compound they conceived, but whether “one has a mental picture of the
structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or
chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it.” Ibid.
Requirements For Establishing Reduction To Practice Of The Count
Qadri raises an issue (QI4) to be considered in determining whether a party has
established reduction to practice in their case for priority: whether a neutron diffraction-type
analysis is essential. Qadri (QB 57) argues that:
[N]eutron diffraction, because of its ability to ‘see’ oxygen atoms among heavier
elements could distinguish between Ortho I, Ortho II, Tetragonal and other impurity
phases and determine the purity of an Ortho I material. . . . Therefore, in March and April
1987, reduction of the count to practice could not be established without neutron
diffraction data.
Qadri (QRB 13-16) points out that “[N]eutron data is needed only to establish that a sample
to be used as a standard for x-ray analysis is actually pure Ortho I.”
We have carefully considered Qadri’s argument but agree with Batlogg (BaI6; BaB 50-
51) that neutron diffraction is not required. We base our reasoning on our construction of the
count. Since the count does not require a composition consisting of Ortho I material, a test to
establish the fraction of Ortho I would not be required. It is only required that the parties reduce
35
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007