Interference No. 103,203
Edgington et al. contend that Nemerson et al. have not established conception11
[sic] of the subject matter of the count because (i) “Dr. Bach’s testimony during direct
examination contradicts the Nemerson et al. purported Fact Paragraph 43 (N Br. 20),”
Edgington Brief, Paper No. 128, p. 29; Paper No. 347, p. 81; (ii) Dr. Spicer’s testimony
demonstrates that Nemerson et al. had not obtained the complete nucleotide sequence of
a DNA encoding mature human tissue factor by February 10, 1987, Edgington Brief,
Paper No. 347, p. 80; (iii) Dr. Horton, a researcher who worked under the direction of Dr.
Konigsberg, testified that as late as February 14, 1987, the complete nucleotide sequence
for mature human tissue factor had not yet been determined, Edgington Brief, Paper No.
347, p. 81; and (iv) that it was not until March 24,1987 that Dr. Spicer
allegedly deduced the complete nucleotide sequence shown in computer printout NRE 93.
Edgington Brief, Paper No. 128, p. 29; Paper No. 347, p. 81.
The Lawn et al. position with respect to Nemerson et al.
Lawn et al. state that Nemerson et al. have not proven an actual reduction to
practice prior to the effective filing date of the Lawn et al. application; i.e., prior to
February 12, 1987, but they provide no reasons or argument in support thereof. Lawn
Brief, p. 100, the penultimate sentence.
11Since Edgington et al. acknowledge that priority in the present interference falls within the
doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice (see Burden of Proof section, infra), we have
interpreted their arguments as meaning that Nemerson et al. have failed to prove an actual reduction to
practice of a species within the scope of the count (now, Count 2).
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007