Interference No. 101,981
In support of their position that Qadri established
conception of the invention of the count by March 2, 1987, Qadri
does not point to evidence to establish that the purported March
2, 1987 conception met all the limitations of the count. Rather,
Qadri contends that conception does not require that every
limitation in the count must be exactly foreseen, citing
Vanderkooi v. Hoeschele, 7 USPQ2d at 1255. Qadri urges that
conception can be established if the knowledge of the inventor
was such that no extensive research or experimentation would be
required, or if the inventors’ planned activity would have
inevitably resulted in the reduction to practice of the invention
if carried out by a person skilled in the art, citing Vanderkooi,
supra, and Lazo, supra.
We disagree with Qadri’s reliance on Vanderkooi for the
proposition that conception does not require that every
limitation in the count must be foreseen. It is misplaced in our
view. The issue in Vanderkooi was not whether the party
Hoeschele supported every limitation of the count. Rather, the
issue was inventorship, i.e., was Dr. Hoeschele, who conceived of
the specific function for the sodium salt of dimer acid, i.e., as
a nucleating agent for polyesters, a sole inventor? Or did the
activity of Deyrup and Garrison in determining the suitable range
41
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007