Appeal No. 1995-4400
Application 07/694,302
· he was "a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Rex Risser ... from January,
1987 until September, 1990";
· "Dr. Risser died in September, 1990";
· "In February 1990, Dr. Risser entered an agreement with Dr. Bruce Chesebro ...
for the transfer of hybridoma cell lines 48 and 720 to Dr. Risser's laboratory";
· "The transfer of the cell lines was for experiments that I was to perform...”;
· "I have knowledge that prior to the transfer..., Dr. Risser and Dr. Chesebro had
agreed that the transfer of the cell lines and the use of the antibodies from the
cell lines would be confidential and that only use within our laboratory was
allowed. The agreement prohibited further transfer of the materials to other
persons or other disclosures of the materials without Dr. Chesebro's permission.
The use of the materials in Dr. Risser's laboratory was limited to uses described
to Dr. Chesebro prior to the transfer";
· "In accordance with the agreement, our uses of the materials was not disclosed
by publication of articles or abstracts, presentations at scientific meetings, or
otherwise."
The facts include the Mitchell declaration, but we will not address it. The declaration
is extensively discussed by the parties as an important fact in determining the issues but
we find it unnecessary to address its merits since the examiner has not satisfied the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of unpatentability.
There is no dispute that '90 MTA is dated more that one year prior to the filing date
of the application. The issue is whether '90 MTA evidences a "public use" more that one
year prior to the filing date of the application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)4 . Appellants argue
4 35 U.S.C. § 102 states, in part, that:
A person shall be entitled to a patent to a patent unless -
...
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007