Interference No. 103,586
For corroboration, Brown rely upon the testimony of Casey regarding the August
11th meeting. Casey testified with respect to the August meeting with the coinventors that
discussions included identifying farnesyl pyrophosphate as a logical choice for farnesyl in
14
the assay, and using ras and ras-related peptides as substrates for the enzyme . With
respect to the September 20, 1989 work of Reiss, Casey testified that within a week or so
of September 14, 1989, he recalled that “Dr. Reiss showed me the results of a study in
which he had demonstrated farnesyl transferase activity in a gel-based assay.”
Opinion re Brown’s case of conception
We find that the Brown record does not establish a complete conception of the
count. 15
As to the August 1, 1989 meeting, the testimony offered is that of the inventors.
However, there is no testimony regarding the use of a test/candidate substance in the
assay. Hence, Brown has not established that these discussions at this meeting satisfy
the limitations of the count. Moreover, it is well settled that the inventor’s testimony
requires corroboration and here, Brown offer none.
Brown, in their brief(page 29), indicate that Casey discussed various issues14
such as the source of FT. Casey’s testimony refers broadly to discussions of the choice of
starting material and does not corroborate Reiss’ testimony that Goldstein had suggested
brain tissue as the source of FT.
Without a conception, the issue of reasonable diligence by the inventors to a15
reduction to practice is moot. Accordingly, we have not considered any evidence relating
to diligence.
-20-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007