NICHOLS et al. V. TABAKOFF et al. - Page 43




             Interference No. 104,522 Paper 108                                                                      
             Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 43                                                                             
                    C. Conclusion                                                                                    
                    We hold that Nichols fails to prove an actual reduction to practice of the invention             
             of the Count prior to Tabakoff's effective filing date of June 6, 1997. We also hold that               
             Nichols has not proved derivation of the subject matter of the Count by Tabakoff.                       
             IV. Deferred Nichols preliminary motion 114                                                             
                    Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(a), Nichols seeks judgment that involved Tabakoff                     
             claims 11 -15, 18 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) for failure to name                  
             Nichols as joint inventors (Paper 33). Tabakoff opposes (Paper 45); Nichols replies                     
             (Paper 50).                                                                                             
                    In Fina Oil and Chemical Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473, 43 USPQ2d 1935,                       
             1941 (Fed. Cir. 1997), our appellate reviewing court said                                               
                           Conception is the touchstone to determining inventorship. See                             
                    Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir.                             
                    1994). Conception of a chemical substance requires knowledge of both                             
                    the specific chemical structure of the compound and an operative method                          
                    of making it. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223,                          
                    1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1921 (Fed. Cir. 1994).                                                     
                    - [A] joint inventor must contribute in some significant manner to the                           
                    conception of the invention. See Pro-Mold & Too] Co. v. Great Lakes                              
                    Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1575, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1632 (Fed. Cir.                              
                    1996) (citing Sewall, 21 F.3d at 415, 30 USP02d at 1358-59). As such,                            
                    "each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and                            
                    permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice." Burroughs                       
                    Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1229, 32 USPQ2d at 1921.                                                    
                           If a person supplies the required quantum of inventive contribution,                      
                    that person does not lose his or her status as a joint inventor just because                     


                    14 In NICHOLS RESPONSE TO TABAKOFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (p. 2, response                     
             to Tabakoff fact no. 16), Nichols confirrned that "Junior Party Nichols filed its Principal Brief on the issues
             of priority, derivation, and inequitable conduct (see Nichols Principal Brief)."                        






Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007