Interference No. 103,675
matter of any count in this interference.
Although we have held that Chen et al. failed in their brief
to meet their burden of persuasion in this proceeding, in an abundance
of caution we have undertaken to review the record for the purpose of
finding the underlying facts which support Chen et al.'s argued
position from their brief that they actually reduced to practice six
compounds within the counts, specifically, BMS-46546; XXXVa; BMS-
182902-01; BMS-183582-01; BMS-183583; and, BMS-183821-01. For reasons
set forth fully below, even considering the facts most favorably to
Chen et al., Chen et al.'s argued position for being declared the
first inventor of the subject matter of the counts is legally
inadequate based on the record before us.
Dr. Chen's November memorandum to Drs. Vyas and Farina (CX
17), is directed to 7-fluoro derivatives not the cyclopropyl compounds
of the count. More significantly, as a memorandum written by Dr. Chen,
one of the named inventors, it cannot be considered as evidence
independent of the inventor and cannot, therefore, be relied on as
evidence of corroboration.
Dr. Chen's notebook pages CX 18 and CX 19 which are relied
on as evidence of Dr. Chen's first experiments preparing compounds
alleged to be within the counts are directed to the preparation of 7-
fluoro derivatives of taxol not cyclopropyl derivatives as required by
102
Page: Previous 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007