Interference No. 104,241
1368, 1373, 213 USPQ 196, 200 (CCPA 1982).
Additionally, Jeon et al.'s argument that "numerous
compounds within the general class of two or three ring
compounds attached to a 2-imidazolinylamino moiety, such as
the compound of claim 29 and of the count, were known to be
ligands for an " adrenergic receptor" (page 6 of Paper Number
2
3) simply ignores the fact that Jeon et al.'s original showing
contained no evidence of any utility. There is certainly no
evidence in the original showing which establishes that at the
time Jeon allegedly synthesized a compound within the count
that the compound allegedly synthesized was known to be member
of a family of known compounds which possessed a common
utility. Jeon et al.'s pronouncement that Jeon synthesized
the compound set forth in his laboratory notebook "with the
certain expectation that the compound would have this utility"
lacks any support in the record evidence and is considered to
be mere attorney argument. We also direct Jeon et al.'s
attention to our reviewing court's decision in Fujikawa v.
Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 39 USPQ2d 1895 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In
addition to affirming the requirement for a showing of
practical utility in establishing an actual reduction to
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007