Interference No. 103,675 al. application at the time it was filed, would have readily understood that instead of obtaining mixtures of 7-fluoro-isomers, mixtures of 7-"-fluoro isomers and 7,8-cyclopropataxols would have been expected to be obtained by performing the steps set forth in the examples. From the record, it is clear that the first indication in the first filed application for which Chen et al. seeks benefit that Chen et al. believed the products produced therein to be other than the disclosed mixture of "- and ß-epimers of the F-taxol derivative synthesized was in January 1993 when the petition to withdraw the application from issue was filed. Nevertheless, there was simply no evidence filed with the petition, nor any in this proceeding, which established the basis on which Chen et al. formed their newly found belief as to the nature of the final products. The tenor of the first filed application is otherwise clear. Fluorinated derivatives of taxol prepared using diethyl amino sulfur trifluoride (DAST), a known fluorinating agent, were obtained. In our view, Chen et al. have fallen into the practice of first presenting decisions from our reviewing courts generally related to the question before us but in which decisions the facts differ substantially from the facts before us and then crafting a rule of law from these cases said to be applicable to all cases regardless of the 37Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007