Interference No. 103,675
identify the nature of the product let alone resolve the product into
its component parts. The actual TLC plates are not of record in this
proceeding.
Recognizing that substantial portions of their "evidence" of
actual reductions to practice shows that mixtures of fluoro epimers
were obtained by reacting DAST with protected taxol not 7,8-
cyclopropyl compounds as required by each count, Chen et al. invoke
case law which is alleged to stand for the proposition that it does
not lessen the value of Chen et al.'s evidence that they
"misinterpreted" the tests and misidentified the compounds.
Nonetheless, as correctly observed by Bouchard et al. in their brief,
one element of any actual reduction to practice is an appreciation or
recognition of the existence of an embodiment within the count. See
pages 14 through 15 of Bouchard et al.'s brief. Dr. Chen's laboratory
notebook referenced at page 163 of the brief as evidence that Dr. Chen
knew by not later than December 2, 1992, that the mixture was not
fluoro epimers of taxol ignores the fact the Dr. Chen signed the
notebook at a date subsequent to Bouchard et al.'s effective filing
date of December 9, 1992. By Dr. Chen's own testimony, he signed his
notebook only after the experiment set forth on a notebook page was
complete.
Chen et al. next attempt to rely on a line of cases
78
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007