Interference 102,728
section of the brief, it appears that Singh is still unable to determine whether this
alleged “new matter” issue concerns written description or enablement, which are the
relevant issues here. Given that four (4) years have passed between the filing of the
Opposition and the brief, and Singh still has not directed these arguments to an
appropriate section of § 112, we will not again speculate as to Singh’s intentions.
Rather, we dismiss these remarks as mere arguments of counsel to which we accord
no evidentiary weight. In re Payne, 606 at 315, 203 USPQ at 256; Meitzner v. Mindick,
549 F.2d at 782, 193 USPQ at 22; In re Lindner, 457 F.2d at 508, 173 USPQ at 358.
VII. Singh’s Case-in-Chief
A. Background
In the brief filed April 2, 1996, in Paper No. 151, Singh argued that “The
invention was first conceived by Dr. Singh and disclosed to another on or about October
1, 1982. From that date forward to an actual reduction to practice on
February 10, 1983, Dr. Singh was said to have exercised reasonable diligence to an
actual reduction to practice.” Paper No. 151, p. 14. See also the Preliminary
Statement, Paper No. 12, p. 2. The Board decision pointed out that Singh had also
argued that by December 1, 1982, Dr. Singh had a plan to delete the “glu-ala” portion of
the " factor spacer sequence from the yeast vector, p60, which encoded, inter alia, the
complete " factor spacer sequence, four additional amino acids (leu-glu-phe-met), and
interferon D (IFN-D). Paper No. 151, pp. 85-87. Thus, in our view, Singh could not
have conceived of the invention on October 1, 1982, as alleged. As an alternative
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007