Korba's results. (FF 55). However, Furman has not directed us to evidence establishing that the
Furman inventors actually received and read the memorandum.
Ms. Kondy testified that she or Dr. Biron would "sometimes" verbally communic e
results to BW chemists. (FF58). However, Furman has not argued or otherwise shown that Ms.
Kondy's testimony establishes such a regular practice of verbal communication of results that we
should infer that it more likely than not occurred on the occasion before us.
Furman has not shown that the Furman inventors themselves determined that the
invention would work for its intended purpose. Furman has not presented us with an alternative
theory as to why the December activity is a reduction to practice by the Furman inventors. In
particular, Furman has not explained to us how the Furman inventors could have reduced to
practice the invention of the count without actual knowledge of Dr. Korba's test results. For
example, Furman does not argue that a reduction to practice occurred when Dr. Korba, Dr. Biron,
or Ms. Kondy learned that BCH-189 exhibited anti-HBV activity in Dr. Korba's test."
It is not our role to make out Furman's case for it nor would it be fair to Belleau for us to
do so. Leveen v. Edwards, 57 USPQ2d at 1413 (BPAI (ITS) 2000) ("[flhe board will not engage
in "role-shifting" by becoming counsel for a party and turning the interference into a contested
case between (1) the party and the board, on the one hand, versus (2) the opponent, on the other
hand").
Accordingly, we hold that Furman has not sufficiently shown a reduction to practice prior
to Belleau.
16 Evidence submitted by Furman suggests that Dr. Korba did not know that one of
the compounds he was testing, coded as DCL-12, was BCH-] 89. (Exh. 2052 at 7).
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007