Interference No. 103,586
and FPP as the farnesyl source. He does not corroborate Reiss’s testimony as to brain
tissue as the source of the enzyme. And he does not corroborate the use of a test
substance in the screening assay as required by the count. Lastly, Casey’s testimony that
a coinventor showed him the results of a study are not sufficiently explanatory to establish
that the inventors were in possession of the subject matter of the count. In each instance,
the testimony offered by Brown relates to finding the enzyme which serves to transfer the
farnesyl to the ras substrate but does not relate to the use of test substance in an assay
containing FT enzyme, a farnesyl acceptor substance or a protein or peptide substrate
having a CAAX motif, and FPP to determine whether the test substance serves as an
inhibitor for FT activity.
VI.
Barbacid motion (Issue 5)
Since we find that Brown does not have a corroborated conception, Brown cannot
prevail. Barbacid prevails based by being the first to reduce to practice the subject matter
of the count. Since Barbacid will be awarded priority, the Board does not find it necessary
to direct attention to the Barbacid motion that the Brown claims are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 135(b). However, the Board will address the Brown motion against Barbacid for
unpatentablility.
VII.
Brown motion (Issue 4)
-22-
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007