Interference No. 104,241
within the count was actually produced; and, (3) recognition
of a specific practical utility for the compound. See, Rivise
and Caesar, Interference Law and Practice § 132 at page 396
(1948).
We find that the notebook page, considered with Jeon's
declaration and Dhar's corroborating declaration at best
establish that Jeon conceived of a method for preparing a
compound of the indicated formula. Jeon et al. specifically
recognize this fact (see page 6 of Paper Number 3). However,
Jeon et al. have neither relied on a conception plus
reasonable diligence theory nor presented any evidence of
reasonable diligence from a time just prior to Cupps et al.'s
effective filing date up to a reduction to practice by Jeon et
al. Evidence of prior conception alone would not prima facie
entitle Jeon et al. to judgment relative to Cupps et al.
Further, the mere description of a reaction scheme and a
proposed product of that scheme does not in and of itself lead
to the conclusion that a compound having the structure
depicted on the laboratory notebook page was actually
synthesized. The fact that the notebook page bears the
initials under "Witnessed & Understood by me" of Murali Dhar
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007