Interference No. 103,675
found on page 173 and is set forth as:
See, e.g., Statement of Facts, infra, ¶¶ 1-19, 178-180 (See
also ¶¶ 20-177, 181-456).
The reference to the "facts" is made without regard to the fact that
the three separate counts in this interference define separate
inventions. Once again, Chen et al. have ignored the fact that it is
they who have the burden of persuasion and instead have directed us to
enormous portions of their statement of "facts" and invited us to
search the facts and find the facts which may support the position
taken by them. This we will not do.
Chen et al.'s reliance on the Patent Application Proposal of
October 23, 1992 (CX 89) as evidence of conception of the subject
matter of the three counts in this proceeding is legally inadequate
because Chen et al. have failed to explain how the document on which
they rely describes the subject matter of any of the three counts in
this proceeding. Additionally, the "proposal" was: "Prepared by" Dr.
Farina, a named inventor who has not testified; "approved" by a person
with the title "Preclinical Clinical Director" who has not testified;
and signed by a person denominated as "Department Head" who has not
testified. Dr. Chen's attached notebook page 30526-043 is "witnessed"
by a person who has not testified. Accordingly, CX 89 lacks any
98
Page: Previous 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007