GODISKA et al v. GRAY - Page 5




              Interference 104,002                                                                                             
              v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 592, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) that                                  
                             . . . an inventor must establish that he “‘actually prepared the                                  
                             composition and knew it would work.’” Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d                                      
                             1028, 1032, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting                                        
                             Mikus v. Wachtel [II], 542 F.2d 1157, 1159, 191 USPQ 571, 573                                     
                             (CCPA 1976)); see also Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab., Inc.,                                 
                             40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994)                                         
                             (reduction to practice requires “the discovery that an invention                                  
                             actually works” (emphasis added)): see also Standard Oil Co.                                      
                             (Indiana) v. Montedison, S.p.A., 494 F. Supp. 370, 206 USPQ 676                                   
                             (D. Del. 1980), aff’d, 664 F.2d 356, 212 USPQ 327 (3d Cir. 1981)                                  
                             (reduction to practice requires a showing of three elements: (i)                                  
                             production of a composition of matter satisfying the limitations of                               
                             the count, (ii) recognition of the composition of matter, and (iii)                               
                             recognition of a specific practical utility for the composition).                                 
                      Godiska, as the junior party, has the burden of proving their case for priority by                       
              a preponderance of the evidence.  37 C.F.R. § 1.657 (b).  See also, Bosies v. Benedict,                          
              27 F.3d 539, 541-42, 30 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Peeler v. Miller, 535                                
              F.2d 647, 651 n.5, 190 USPQ 117, 120 n.5 (CCPA 1976); Linkow v. Linkow, 517 F.2d                                 
              1370, 1373, 186 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1975).                                                                       
                      Godiska argues that Dr. Godiska worked under the direction of Dr. Gray to                                
              isolate and characterize clones obtained from a human macrophage cDNA library.                                   
              GB, p. 125.  Godiska further argues that on December 12, 1994, Dr. Godiska gave                                  
              several isolated clones from said library to Ms. Christa Wood, a research associate at                           
              Icos Corporation, for DNA sequence analysis.  Id., p. 126; GR 121, para. 14.  Ms. Wood                           
              sequenced the clones using an Applied biosystems automated DNA sequencer, model                                  
              373A, and gave the results to Dr. Godiska on December 15, 1994.  Id., p. 127; GR 75,                             
              para. 55; GR 122, para. 16.  Dr. Godiska is said to have analyzed the three potential                            

                                                              5                                                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007