Interference No. 103,675
least one alternative of Count 4. For example, how does Chen et al.'s
proof of preparing the compound BMS-183821-01 satisfy the requirements
for any compound defined by Count 4? Chen et al. have simply not
explained how their proofs meet the requirements of the counts and,
accordingly, have not met their burden of persuasion on this matter in
their brief.
CHEN ET AL.'S CASE FOR PRIORITY
As correctly observed by Chen et al. in their brief, a
chemical compound is actually reduced to practice when a compound
meeting every limitation of the count is actually prepared and its
utility demonstrated. As correctly observed by Bouchard et al. in
their brief, absent adequate identification and appreciation by the
inventor that a compound within the count has actually been prepared,
there can be no actual reduction to practice.
Chen et al. argue that they actually reduced to practice
compounds within each of the three counts before Bouchard et al.'s
effective filing date of December 9, 1992. Nevertheless, each of the
counts in this interference is in the bifurcated or alternative form.
That is, each count recites two alternatives for the subject matter
defined therein. Moreover, each alternative for each count sets forth
either formulae with various substituents thereon which further define
the subject matter (Counts 4 and 3A) or the alternatives define a
76
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007