Interference 102,728
inventor’s testimony, standing alone is insufficient to prove conception -- some form of
corroboration must be shown”). On the record before us, we find it very disconcerting
that Singh has not pointed to any evidence which establishes when the notation was
written on the notebook page.
We recognize that physical exhibits, such as drawings, or in this case is an
oligonucleotide, can be relied upon, as evidence of conception of the invention;
however, “they must show a complete conception, free from ambiguity or doubt, and
such as would enable the inventor or others skilled in the art to reduce the conception
to practice without any further exercise of inventive skill.” Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d
908, 916, 150 USPQ 634, 641 (CCPA 1966), quoting Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App.
D.C. 264. That is, the exhibit must be sufficiently clear so as to enable those skilled in
the art to understand it. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d at 1189, 26 USPQ2d at 1037.
Here, we agree with Brake, that the notation in the laboratory notebook fails to provide
a protocol or an outline of the “loop deletion” mutagenesis procedure. Paper No. 190,
p. 57. The notation does not set forth Dr. Singh’s plan as to how he intended to reduce
his invention to practice. Thus, we find the notation insufficient to establish Dr. Singh’s
and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention,” as it was thereafter to be
applied in practice by December 1, 1982. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr
Laboratories Inc., 40 F.3d at 1228, 35 USPQ2d at 1919; Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1376, 231 USPQ at 87. Mr. Henner’s signature indicating
that he read and understood the notebook pages only establishes that the pages
existed on the date signed. Mr. Henner’s signature does not corroborate the
statements made on those pages. Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032, 13 USPQ2d
1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
60
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007