Interference No. 103,203
Edgington et al. v. Lawn et al.
Lawn et al. have been accorded an effective filing date of February 12, 1987. See
above, Decision on Motions, p. 7.
As noted on pp. 20-21 above, in the “Findings of fact related to Edgington et al.’s
case for priority,” the earliest date of an actual reduction to practice of a nucleotide
sequence encoding amino acid residues 1 to 263 of the human tissue factor protein
alleged by Edgington et al. in their briefs is March 6, 1987. Edgington Brief, Paper
No. 128, pp. 16, 18, 40-41; Paper No. 347, pp. 9 and 31. Even if we assume, arguendo,
that Edgington et al. have met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that they had an actual reduction to practice of an invention within the scope of the count on
the alleged date, this date does not “beat” the effective filing date of senior party Lawn et
al. of February 12, 1987. Accordingly, between Edgington et al. and Lawn et al., we
conclude that Lawn et al. were the “first to invent” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
In an attempt to defeat Lawn et al.’s constructive reduction to practice date of
February 12, 1987, Edgington et al. argue that the earlier-filed Application
07/013,743 (the ‘743 Application) does not describe a species within the scope of the
count. Edgington et al. contend that there are discrepancies between the nucleotide
sequences set forth in Figures 2 and 3 of the earlier-filed ‘743 Application and the
sequence in the Figures of the involved ‘989 Application. Edgington Briefs, Paper No.
347, pp. 33-34. Specifically, Edgington et al. point to differences in the sequence at
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007