Interference No. 103,197
sufficiency of the disclosure of Morrison and Yue's conception
evidence must be judged from the standpoint of a person having
ordinary skill in both arts. Compare In re Brown, 477 F.2d
946, 950-51, 177 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1973) (where the
invention involves two different technologies, the sufficiency
of the disclosure is to be judged in terms of a person having
ordinary skill in both technologies) (citing In re Naquin,
398 F.2d 863, [866,] 55 CCPA 1428 [158 USPQ 317, 319] (1968)).
A conception must also include every feature of the invention
recited in the count. Burroughs Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1228,
32 USPQ2d at 1919 (citing Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359,
224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
It is clear that the November 1987 designs represent
embodiments of probes that Drs. Morrison and Yue envisioned as
suitable for use in actual practice. It is also clear that
these probe designs, if used as intended, will satisfy every
limitation of method Count 5, as is necessary to prove
conception. That is, the "radiation emitter sensor area" of
the "monitoring device" recited in the count reads on the
hypodermic needle and optical fiber that emit red and infrared
light into the tissue under examination; the "radiation sensor
- 42 -
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007