Interference No. 103,675
date of invention. Accordingly, for Chen et al. to prevail in this
proceeding they must establish by a preponderance of the evidence
either (1) that they actually reduced to practice the subject matter
of the counts before Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date or (2)
prove a conception of the subject matter of the counts before Bouchard
et al.'s involved application's effective filing date, coupled with
reasonable diligence just prior to Bouchard et al.'s effective filing
date up to a reduction to practice (constructive or actual) by Chen et
al. Jepson v. Egly, 231 F.2d 947, 950-51, 109 USPQ 354, 357 (CCPA
1956); Hull v. Davenport, 24 CCPA (Patents) 1194, 90 F.2d 103, 105, 33
USPQ 506, 508 (CCPA 1937); Wilson v. Sheets, 81 F.2d 755, 761-62, 28
USPQ 379, 385 (CCPA 1936).
In their brief, Chen et al. allege to have actually reduced
to practice six compounds prior to December 9, 1992, the effective
filing date of Bouchard et al.'s involved application. Chen et al.
allege that each of the six compounds actually reduced to practice is
a compound within the counts. Chen et al. also allege that they
conceived of the subject matter of the counts prior to Bouchard et
al.'s effective filing and were reasonably diligent from just prior to
Bouchard et al.'s filing date up to the filing of their involved
patent in this interference.
CHEN ET AL.'S BRIEF
71
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007