(CCPA 1981); Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ2d at 1903. However, the "rule
of reason" does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent
corroboration." Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d, 353, 360, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 19f 5).
Furman argues that it was the first to conceive of and the first to reduce to practice the
invention" of count 1, count 2 and count 3 ("the counts") (Paper 88 at 17). In particular, Furman
argues that:
(1) Furman simultaneously conceived and reduced to practice the invention in July or
August of 1990 when:
(a) Dr. Painter recorded receipt of the Liotta samples in his notebook and noted
that the samples should be sent for HBV testing after HIV testing (Paper 88 at 17) (FF 33 A-C),
or
(b) Dr. Painter recorded the identity of the Liotta samples in his notebook and
one of the samples was identified as 13CH-189 (Paper 88 at 20). (FF37).
(2) the July or August reduction to practice was confirmed by 12 December 1990
when Dr. Korba provided his preliminary report on the activity of BCH- 189 (Paper 88 at 22).
(FF 50).
(3) Furman was diligent in reducing to practice the invention of the counts (Paper 88
at 23).
13 We will refer to the invention (singular) of the counts for the sake of simplicity
even though we do not decide if the counts are directed to a single patentable invention.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007