We also note that Huang is in disagreement with the
position that in vitro testing alone cannot predict COX-2
inhibitory activity. Huang states that it "disagrees with
Merck's admission that in vitro activity alone is not
sufficient to make reliable predictions concerning in vivo
effectiveness of compounds alleged to possess such anti-
inflammatory, antipyretic and analgesic activity...." (Paper
47 at 4).
Huang has not met its burden by proving that a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably doubted
that the compounds claimed by Huang possessed COX-2 inhibitory
activity.
Accordingly, we DENY Huang preliminary motion 1.
2. Priority
Prasit relies upon its earliest benefit date of 29 August
1994 for priority. Huang argues that it actually reduced to
practice an embodiment of the count prior to 29 August 1994.
Huang does not argue diligence. Therefore, if Huang cannot
establish a reduction to practice date prior to 29 August
1994, Huang cannot prevail on priority. We hold that Huang
has not established an actual reduction to practice prior to
29 August 1994.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007