Interference No. 103,675
inventors. Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1035, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1319
(Fed. Cir. 1989). We find no such independent evidence in the Chen et
al. record.
Chen et al. allege throughout their brief that Dr. Farina,
one of the two named inventors of Chen et al.'s involved patent, made
suggestions to Dr. Chen or asked Dr. Chen to make certain
modifications to the taxol molecule for purposes of investigation.
Nevertheless, Dr. Farina, who apparently no longer works for Bristol-
Myers Squibb, has never testified in this proceeding and all the
references to his suggestions or recommendations to Dr. Chen are
references to Dr. Chen's testimony. That is, the references are
testimony from Dr. Chen concerning what Dr. Farina is alleged to have
stated to Dr. Chen some many years ago when Dr. Chen performed the lab
work on which Chen et al. rely. The record also establishes that Dr.
Chen's recall of events from the relevant time period is not great (CR
1598, lines 5 through 9; CR 1599, lines 7 through 11). Thus, Dr.
Chen's testimony about what Dr. Farina told him is uncorroborated and
not supported by any other evidence independent of Dr. Chen in this
record. Further, Dr. Farina is a co-inventor and his testimony, if
given, would therefore also require corroboration.
More significantly, however, is the fact that other than Dr.
Chen's writings from his notebook and Dr. Chen's testimony, there is
90
Page: Previous 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007