Interference No. 103,675
no evidence proffered by Chen et al. independent of Dr. Chen which
supports Chen et al.'s allegation that any compounds within the counts
were ever actually reduced to practice. While an inventor's writings
in his laboratory notebook may, with proper corroboration, serve as
evidence of a conception of the subject matter of the count, they are
never adequate, standing alone, to serve as an actual reduction to
practice. Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d at 1032-33, 13 USPQ2d at 1317-18.
The witness' signature on Dr. Chen's various notebook pages
under the space marked "WITNESSED" and "DATE" at best may establish
only that those pages existed on the date they were witnessed. See
Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d at 1033, 13 USPQ2d at 1317. It cannot be
gainsaid that signing a blank marked "WITNESSED" on a laboratory
notebook page evidences what, on the date signed, the person
"WITNESSING" the notebook actually witnessed. Rather, what was read
and understood at the time the notebook page was signed can only be
determined from the testimony of the persons involved and other,
contemporaneous in time, evidence. But no witness who signed any of
Dr. Chen's notebooks (or any other researcher's laboratory notebook)
has ever testified in this proceeding!
According to Dr. Chen's testimony, it was his practice to
write at the top of his notebook, after he entered the date he began
an experiment, an outline of the experiment he was to perform in terms
91
Page: Previous 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007