Interference No. 104,241
compound allegedly synthesized by Jeon. Mere inspection of
the evidence originally submitted by Jeon et al. under 37
C.F.R.
§ 1.608(b) evidences a total lack of any reference whatsoever
to any evidence of a practical utility contemporaneous in time
with the evidence relied on to establish an actual reduction
to practice. On that basis alone, we find the APJ correctly
issued the order to show cause.
The error we see in Jeon et al.'s arguments as set forth
in Paper Number 3 on pages 6 through 10 concerning: the known
utility of similar "ligands"; structural similarity to other
compounds having known utility; Jeon's expectation that the
compound he prepared would have a particular utility; and,
allegedly known non-pharmaceutical uses of the compound
allegedly prepared by Jeon is that Jeon et al.'s original
submission contains no evidence in support of these mere
arguments and certainly no evidence contemporaneous in time
with the alleged synthesis which established an appreciation
by the inventor of such alleged utility. Mere attorney
argument cannot take the place of objective, probative
evidence lacking in the record. Knorr v. Pearson, 671 F.2d
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007