SCOTT et al. V. KOYAMA et al. - Page 17





              Interference No. 103,635                                                                                     
              (paper no. 68) but, as Scott has recognized, this does not meet the conditions for an actual                 
              reduction to practice.                                                                                       
                     Accordingly, Scott relies on these additional facts showing activities in the U.S.:                   
               · "[t]his process, introduced as such into the U.S., went directly into use in the                          
                   [completed] St. Gabriel, Louisiana plant";                                                              
               · "[t]he process was intentionally and expressly designed for use in the United Sates";                     
               · Luther Smith testified that the project "involved going directly from the approved                        
                   laboratory process into the full-scale commercial plant without the intermediate use of                 
                   a pilot plant";                                                                                         
               · "[t]he reduction to practice resulted from computer simulated tests which were readily                    
                   transposed regardless of the geography involved"; and,                                                  
               · "the process from the outset was intended for use in the U.S."                                            
              Also, a document comprising flowsheets describing the process of the Count (SX11,                            
              SX17; SB 10) had been received in the U.S. prior to Koyama's priority date of March 13,                      
              1990.                                                                                                        
                     Based on these facts, Scott argues that "the introduction [of the process] into the                   
              U.S. prior to March 13, 1990, of the complete process ready to go, should, in and of itself,                 
              represent an actual reduction to practice". We disagree.                                                     
                     The fact is, prior to March 13, 1990, individuals in the U.S. possessed nothing but a                 
              specification of the process reduced to practice in the U.K. and an intent to build a plant.                 
              No chemicals or laboratory equipment were shipped or acquired or used to practice the                        
              method of the count. Notwithstanding the evidence that Scott had every intention of                          
              constructing a plant in the U.S. for the purpose of conducting the process described on the                  
              flowsheets, the only thing that existed in the U.S. prior to March 13, 1990, which related to                
              the process of the Count was a specification of the process. There is no question that                       

                                                                                                                           
              15 Rivise & Caesar, Interference Law and Practice § 132, Vol. 1, p. 396, The Michie Co. (1940)               
                                                            17                                                             






Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007