Interference No. 103,675
specific work performed on the related applications on
almost every working day in the critical period to support
Hattan's testimony that she worked continuously on the
applications during this period. (emphasis ours)
Bey, 806 F.2d at 1030, 231 USPQ at 972. Here the "critical period"
runs from December 8, 1992 (just prior to December 9, 1992), to March
13, 1993, a 95-day period. There is absolutely no evidence of who
worked on what applications on which days for any day in the critical
period. Indeed, Mr. Han, the person alleged by Chen et al. to have
been charged with the responsibility of prosecuting the applications
in question, has not testified!
Accordingly, we find that Chen et al.'s brief fails to prove
that it is more likely than not that Chen et al. actually reduced to
practice any compound within any of the counts in this interference
prior to Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date of December 9, 1992.
Additionally, we find that Chen et al.'s brief fails to prove that
Chen et al. conceived of any compound within any of the counts in this
interference before Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date of
December 9, 1992, and fails to prove that Chen et al. were reasonably
diligent from just prior to Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date up
to a reduction to practice, actual or constructive, of the subject
101
Page: Previous 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007