of the count. Dr. Alton’s testimony states that IFN-( had been shown to have anti-viral, anti
tumor, and anti-proliferative properties (FF 16(a)). Dr. Alton testified that “we”10 prepared IFN
( analogs with a view toward testing the analogs for their anti-viral and anti-proliferative
properties (FF 16(b)). Thus, Dr. Alton’s testimony indicates that his plan was to use the [Met-1,
des-Cys1, des-Tyr2, des-Cys3]IFN-( as an anti-viral or anti-proliferative agent.
Dr. Stabinsky’s testimony does not explicitly address the intended use of the [Met-1, des
Cys1, des-Tyr2, des-Cys3]IFN-(. However, “[u]nder a rule of reason analysis, an inventor's
uncorroborated testimony that he conceived a utility for his invention may be accepted if there
exists other corroborated evidence to indicate that the inventor's testimony is credible...The
utility of the invention need not always be explicitly corroborated. Circumstances may make a
utility implicit.” Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1451, 41 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Like the Court in Kridl, we determine that the evidence before us indicates that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have accepted Dr. Alton’s testimony of intended use of his
invention at the time of his conception. The evidence before us is consistent with Dr. Alton’s
testimony indicating that he conceived the utility of his invention when he conceived its other
features. In particular, the state of the art was such that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have accepted Dr. Alton’s testimony indicating that the IFN-( analogs were being prepared for
use as anti-viral and anti-proliferative agents. For example, the Gray publication, which was
published prior to Dr. Alton’s work in October of 1982, acknowledges the anti-viral and anti-
proliferative effects of IFN-( (FFs 28 and 29).
10 We understand “we” to refer to Dr. Alton and unspecified others.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007