Interference 103,781
Another approach “involves replacement of relatively large
segments of the B.t.k. gene with chemically synthesized segments
which code for the same amino acids but which utilized codons of
lower A+T content” (MDX 1478, last page, last paragraph).
We do not hesitate to find that the Fischhoff’s written
memorandum (MDX 1478) shows that Fischhoff’s inventors had a
definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative
invention of Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s involved application
corresponding to Count 2 of this interference at the time it was
written. Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d at 1449, 41 USPQ2d
at 1689; Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.
The more interesting question is whether Fischhoff’s written
memorandum (MDX 1478) so clearly defines the idea “that only
ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to
practice, without extensive research or experimentation.”
Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., 40 F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d
at 1919. To answer that question, we particularly note that an
inventor may have a definite and permanent concept of an
invention without knowing that the concept will work. Id.
at 1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1919.
But an inventor need not know that his invention
will work for conception to be complete. Applegate v.
Scherer, 332 F.2d 571, 573, 141 USPQ 796, 799 (CCPA 1964).
He need only show that he had the idea; the discovery that
an invention actually works is part of its reduction to
practice. Id.
-73-
Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007