Interference No. 104,241
alleged to have been synthesized by Jeon. Nevertheless, the
APJ also held that neither the notebook page on which Jeon et
al. rely nor Jeon's declaration considered with Dhar's
corroborating declaration establish a structure for whatever
compound was actually synthesized by Jeon let alone a compound
having the structure depicted on Jeon's laboratory notebook
page. The APJ found that Jeon et al.'s showing lacked at
least evidence of any recognition by the inventor
contemporaneous in time with the alleged synthesis which
proved that a compound actually possessing the structure
depicted on the notebook page was actually synthesized on a
date prior to Cupps et al. effective filing date.
Jeon et al. have argued that the APJ's determinations
should be overturned, that we should find the original showing
under 37 C.F.R § 1.608(b) adequate to establish Jeon et al.
are prima facie entitled to judgment relative to Cupps et al.,
that the order to show cause should be vacated for reasons set
forth on pages 6 through 10 of Paper Number 3 and, the
interference should be permitted to go forward.
We agree with the APJ's conclusion that Jeon et al.'s
original submission failed to establish any utility for the
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007