Interference No. 103,675
of the reaction procedures he would use to synthesize the proposed
compound. See CR 50 ("I ordinarily recorded the structure of the
starting material, and if known, the structure of the product expected
from the reaction."). Thus, we consider Dr. Chen's notebook to be
outlines of work he performed with an expressed objective set forth in
the nature of the chemical reaction he set forth, including a proposed
final product. Absent any positive, corroborated identification of
what was actually prepared, we decline to accept the reaction scheme
and the proposed product set forth in the notebook pages as proof that
the proposed products were actually prepared. Rather, they are a
statement by Dr. Chen of his objective in performing the particular
experiment set forth on any particular notebook page.
In Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 895-96, 134 USPQ 296, 300
(CCPA 1962), the court, in discussing whether or not reports of
scientific research and testing were subject to the "shop book" rule
of 28 U.S.C. § 1732, characterized reports of the inventors to their
superiors about the work the inventors allegedly performed as being:
no more than the usual inventor's work or progress reports
which the decisions of this court have held cannot be relied
on to establish reduction to practice since they are not
independent corroboration of an inventor's testimony.
(citations omitted)
92
Page: Previous 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007