Interference 102,728
the exact complementarity needed to accomplish the loop deletion method; however,
we hold that Singh has failed to satisfy its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Dr. Singh conceived of the complete and operative loop deletion method
prior to January 12, 1983, because Singh has (i) not provided any evidence which
establishes when the loop deletion method was actually developed, and that Dr. Singh
knew of this method, and (ii) only demonstrated that Dr. Singh ordered or knew of one
of the two oligonucleotide primers needed to perform loop deletion mutagenesis, prior
to the critical date. The loop deletion mutagenesis technique requires a second primer,
the LAC primer. Singh has not pointed to any evidence which demonstrates that Dr.
Singh understood the need for the LAC primer prior to January 12, 1983.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we hold that Singh has failed to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Singh had complete conception of an invention
within the scope of the count prior to Brake’s critical date of January 12, 1983.
VIII. Diligence
Since we hold that Singh did not conceive of an invention within the scope of the
count prior to Brake’s effective filing date of January 12, 1983, the issue of diligence of
the inventor to a reduction to practice is moot.
However, even if we assume, arguendo, that the Singh record establishes
conception of the subject matter of the count, then we would hold that said record does
not establish reasonable diligence from a time just prior to Brake’s entry into the field.
85
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007