memorandum is submitted as evidence to show that generally meetings were held to discuss what
samples to send to Dr. Korba or as evidence to show that the Furman inventors were involved in
the decision to send BCH-I 89 to Dr. Korba. At any rate, the memorandum does not showithe
latter since it does not mention either Furman inventor or the BCH- 189 sample.
Dr. Biron's testimony does not indicate that a Furman inventor explicitly or implicitly
requested that BCH- 189 be sent for anti-HBV testing.
When we consider Dr. Furman's testimony in combination with other evidence pointed to
by Furma n, we determine that Furman has not shown that Dr. Korba's testing and test results, to
the extent they can be said to be recognition of the utility of an invention, inured to the benefit of
the Furman inventors. In particular, Furman has failed to show that the Furman inventors: (1)
had an expectation that BCH- 189 would work for its intended purpose, and
(2) requested anti-HBV testing of BCH- 189.
In vitro testin
Furman has not shown that Dr. Korba's testing and results from the testing inure to the
benefit of the Furman inventors. Accordingly, we need not and do not decide if Dr. Korba's test
results amount to a determination that BCH-l 89 would work for its intended purpose, For
example, we need not and do not decide if Dr. Korba's in vitro test was an adequate one given
the scope of the interference counts, which at least include and are arguably limited to, in vivo
utilities.
34
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007