Interference No. 103,675
legally inadequate. What person corroborated which alleged actual
reduction to practice? Chen et al.'s brief does not tell us these
facts. Further, because this interference has three separate counts
defining three separate inventions and because each count sets forth
the interfering subject matter in the so-called bifurcated or
alternative format, it was Chen et al.'s burden to establish to this
Board and to Bouchard et al. that each alleged reduction to practice
was a reduction to practice of the subject matter of a particular
alternative of a particular count.
While it may appear logical for Chen et al. to have presumed
that their proofs would necessarily correspond to those alternatives
in the count that describe the interfering subject matter in terms
corresponding to the disclosure in their involved patent, a party may
prove its priority case by showing a reduction to practice of
compounds within their opponents' disclosure. Thus, it was necessary
for Chen et al. to "read" the compounds they allege are actual
reductions to practice of the subject matter for the various counts on
the subject matter defined in the counts. For example, it was Chen et
al.'s burden in alleging to have actually reduced to practice a
compound within Count 4 in this proceeding to show what the values
were for the various substituents on the compound alleged to have been
reduced to practice and which are described in the evidence and in at
75
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007