Interference No. 103,675
interpreting the law of proving an actual reduction to practice which
cases suggest that when the work relied on as an actual reduction to
practice was performed in a so-called "organized research program" it
has greater reliability than work not performed in such a program.
Once again, Chen et al. have fallen into the practice of citing
diverse cases decided on particular facts distinct from the facts in
this case and attempted to formulate from these cases a "bright line"
rule of law which, according to Chen et al., mandates a finding that
they have satisfied their burden of persuasion. However, as one of the
predecessors to our reviewing court has observed:
undue liberties should not be taken with court decisions,
which should be construed in accordance with the precise
issue before the court, and [that] a fertile source of error
in patent law is misapplication of a sound legal principle
established in one case to another case in which the facts
are essentially different and the principle has no
application whatsoever.
In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 689, 118 USPQ 101, 103 (CCPA 1958).
Suffice it to say that the evidence in this proceeding to
which we have been directed does not adequately establish the nature
of the research program at Bristol-Myers Squibb let alone establish
79
Page: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007