Interference No. 102,408
Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092,
44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the rules
or in our jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the
unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”).
Moreover, the James declaration fails to establish that
the infrared absorption curve of sample no. 12459B-47B was
"reviewed" and appreciated prior to the critical date. See
generally CR1-5. See Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d at 1331, 47
USPQ2d at 1904 (to establish an actual reduction to practice,
the inventor must contemporaneously appreciate the invention
at issue; subsequent testing or later recognition may not be
used to show that a party had contemporaneous appreciation of
the invention). Indeed, the evidence relied on by Child fails
to establish when the infrared spectroscopy analysis of sample
no. 12459B-47B was even completed. Although the absorption
curve bears a date of June 7, 1984 (CR20), the meaning of that
date has not been explained on this record.
As for the elemental analyses of sample nos. 12459B-47A
and 12459B-47B, we are not convinced that elemental analysis
conclusively establishes the identity of a compound. See
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007