Interference No. 103,675
any of the counts. For all the above noted reasons, we conclude that
Chen et al. have failed to prove an actual reduction to practice of
any compound within any of the counts in this interference.
CHEN ET AL.'S CONCEPTION PLUS DILIGENCE THEORY
In their brief, from pages 173 through 177, Chen et al. urge
that even though they have proven an actual reduction to practice of
the subject matter of the counts prior to December 9, 1992, Chen et
al. should also be declared the first inventor of the subject matter
of the counts because they conceived of the invention of the counts
before Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date and were reasonably
diligent in reducing to practice the subject matter of the counts from
just prior to Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date up to the filing
on March 11, 1993, of the application which matured into their
involved patent in this proceeding.
There is an even greater paucity of detail with respect to
the underlying facts which allegedly support Chen et al.'s theory
advanced in their brief on this issue than the section of their brief
setting forth the grounds for an alleged actual reduction to practice.
The evidence of conception to which we are directed in the brief is
97
Page: Previous 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007