Interference No. 102,408
silent as to which one of products "A" or "B" (or even "C",
"D" or "E") is "compound no. 1." See KB18-19 (junior party's
declarations fail to identify which sample is actually the
sample called compound 1; despite difference in color and 10EC
difference in melting point, we are left to draw an assumption
as to whether sample A, sample B, a combination of samples A
and B, or sample C, D or E is compound 1). Neither the brief
nor the reply brief of junior party Child clarifies the
matter. Compare Mikus, 542 F.2d at 1159-60,
191 USPQ at 574 (actual reduction to practice was not
established where priority proofs were shown to be
inconsistent).
For the reasons set forth below, the evidence relied on
by junior party Child as a whole fails to establish that a
compound within the scope of the count was actually reduced to
practice prior to the critical date.
1. Production and recognition of compound
Junior party Child relies on the results of an infrared
spectroscopy analysis of sample no. 12459B-47B and elemental
analyses of sample nos. 12459B-47A and 12459B-47B to establish
that a compound satisfying the limitations of the count was
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007