Therefore, even if we were to find that all the testing
of SC-60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, or SC-60668 by the
Monsanto employees inured to the benefit of the Huang
inventors, Huang has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the testing established a successful reduction
to practice of SC-60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, or SC-
60668.
C. Conclusion
We deny Huang preliminary motion 1 for judgment that all
the claims of the Prasit application are unpatentable to
Prasit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 or 112, first paragraph as
lacking an adequate description of utility and failing to be
supported by an enabling disclosure.
We hold that Huang has not proven by a preponderance of
the evidence that it actually reduced to practice an
embodiment within the scope of the count prior to Prasit's
constructive reduction to practice on 29 August 1994.
In particular, Huang has not shown that either inventor
requested, either explicitly or implicitly, testing of SC-
60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, or SC-60668 for the
intended purpose of the invention. Therefore, the testing of
the compounds by Monsanto employee Koboldt, Veenhuizen, or
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007