BROOKS et al. V. IKEDA et al. V. HODGSON et al. - Page 3


                 Interference No. 103378                                                                                  

                 record. 2 (IR 15 and 16). Ikeda and Brooks could not decide priority between                             

                 them and submitted to the Board a single issue for determination.3  To wit, have                         

                 Brooks established an actual reduction to practice as of November 16, 19904                              

                 when Rodriques made a compound within the scope of the count or at a later                               

                 date when testing occurred as asserted by Ikeda.                                                         

                         The Brooks record consists of the affidavit testimony of Clint Dee W.                            

                 Brooks, Michael Meyer, Douglas H. Steinman, Randy L. Bell, Karen E.                                      

                 Rodriques, Dr. Anthony Kreft, Robert L. Rosati and Elias J. Corey and the                                
                 associated exhibits attached to each of these affidavits, excerpts from the                              

                 involved Brooks, Hodgson, and Ikeda applications, and the involved U.S. Patent                           

                 No. 5,187,192 issued to Brooks.                                                                          



                 Brooks case for priority                                                                                 
                         Rodriques, a named inventor, testified that on November 13, 1990, she                            

                 prepared a preparation of N-[3-phenylcyclobutyl]-N-hydroxyurea, which was                                

                                                                                                                          
                         2 The Brooks record, brief and exhibits will be referred to herein as BR, BB, and                
                 BX, respectively.                                                                                        
                         3 Party Brooks does not raise the issue of prior conception coupled with                         
                 reasonable diligence to filing of its application.  Therefore, this issue is deemed                      
                 abandoned.  Photis v. Lunkenheimer, 225 USPQ 948, 950 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984).  See also                    
                 Estee Lauder Inc. v. L' Oreal, 120 F.3d 588, 592-93, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1613 (Fed. Cir.                     
                 1997) (where our reviewing court stated that the district court could not examine, absent                
                 compelling circumstances, evidence directed to an issue not raised before the board).                    
                         4 Brooks’ preliminary statement indicates that the earliest date relied upon for a               
                 reduction to practice is November 16, 1990. (See Paper No. 35, and Statement of                          
                 Reliance, Paper No. 97). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.629(b) which states: [E]vidence which                         
                 shows that an act alleged in the preliminary statement occurred prior to the date alleged                
                 in the statement shall establish only that the act occurred as early as the date alleged in              
                 the statement.                                                                                           


                                                            3                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007