Interference No. 103,675
number of tumor models (see page 30 of Paper Number 288).
Again, none of Chen et al.'s arguments on the matter of
utility are supported by specific references to the record but include
only oblique, generic references to large portions of the record which
are little more than invitations to us to read the record and find
portions which may support the argument proffered. Again, Chen et al.
have also failed to read the compounds actually tested on the
requirements for each substituent in any alternative of either Count 4
or Count 2. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to address what is the
type of testing required to establish practical utility for any of the
compounds allegedly tested. There is no specific probative objective
evidence referenced in Chen et al.'s arguments which proves that Chen
et al. tested any compound which was sufficiently, contemporaneously
identified and recognized as a compound within the counts. Stated
another way, Chen et al. cannot rely on test results for compounds
that have not been established as compounds which satisfy all the
limitations of the counts for the purpose of proving the compounds had
a specific utility. We agree with the position taken by Bouchard et
al. that because the law requires, as part of the proof of an actual
reduction to practice, recognition of successful testing prior to
Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date, Chen et al. have failed to
adequately prove utility for any compound within any of the counts
85
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007