NICHOLS et al. V. TABAKOFF et al. - Page 48





                Interference No. 104,522 Paper108                                                                                               
                Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 48                                                                                                     
                102. Dr. Nichols sent samples of several of his products to NIH for "anticonvulsant"                                            

                testing and/or to Dr. Snell for "pharmacological" testing as discussed above (see e.g.,                                         
                Ex 2024, second page, and § 111. Priority of this decision).                                                                    

                        B. Analysis                                                                                                             

                        It is Nichols burden to prove that it is a joint inventor of Tabakoff claims 11-15, 18                                  

                and 19 by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Cavenev, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ                                                

                1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1985); 37 CFR § 1.637(a). In our opinion, Nichols fails to show that it                                         
                '.significantly" contributed to the invention of Tabakoff claims 11 -15, 18 and 19 by a                                         

                preponderance of the evidence.                                                                                                  

                                 1 . claim interpretation                                                                                       

                        Initially, we note that "[i]f the body of the claim sets out the complete invention,                                    
                and the preamble is not necessary to give 'life, meaning and vitality' to the claim, 'then                                      

                the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to                                           


                (a) ...   If, however, you [Dr. Yielding] and Al to proceed with a patent application prior to our                              
                        getting data on the comparison of our compounds and those patented by Merck, I would                                    
                        like you both not to forget our conversation in Denver. The idea for generating the                                     
                        chemical structures (i.e., the ureido substituted kynurenates) originated with me, as did                               
                        the postulate of the proposed biologic activity of, particularly, the diphenylureido                                    
                        derivatives. My postulates have been borne out by experiments in my laboratories. 1,                                    
                        therefore, fully expect that any patent application on the ureido substituted kynurenates                               
                        will have me definitely included as an inventor on the application. [Ex 2005, emphasis                                  
                        added.]                                                                                                                 
                (b) ...   I [Dr. Tabakoffl reiterate that the original idea to generate the                                                     
                        dichloro.diphenylureidokynurenates belonged to me, and, as well, I proposed the                                         
                        physiological mechanisms by which such agents would express their anticonvulsant and                                    
                        other actions. ... [Ex 2006, emphasis added.]                                                                           
                (C) In terms of inventorship and other business-related issues, I would want the                                                
                        following: Given that the idea for the DCUKs fi.e., dichloro-diphenVl-ureido-kynurenatesI                               
                        originated with me [Dr. Tabakoffl, ... (Ex 2007, p. 2, emphasis added).                                                 









Page:  Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007