Interference 103,781
Thus, “[t]he question is not whether . . . [Fischhoff] reasonably
believed that the invention would work for their intended purpose
. . . but whether the inventors had formed the idea . . . in
sufficient final form that only the exercise of ordinary skill
remained to reduce it to practice.” Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v.
Barr Labs., 40 F.3d at 1231, 32 USPQ2d at 1922.
Adang does not deny Fischhoff’s argument that the evidence
of record establishes that Drs. Fischhoff and Perlak worked
diligently from October 30, 1986, the alleged date of the written
memorandum in which they memorialized their conception of every
feature of the invention of Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s involved
application corresponding to Count 2, until they actually reduced
an embodiment thereof to practice no later than September 9,
1988, allegedly no later than August 10, 1988, the date when they
first recognized and appreciated that the method of Claim 3 of
Fischhoff’s involved application worked as intended. While
the efforts of Drs. Fischhoff and Perlak, including the work
performed by others at their direction and/or order, to reduce an
embodiment of their invention to practice continued for a period
of at most twenty-two months, the evidence does not indicate that
the work required to reduce an embodiment of their invention to
practice exceeded the ordinary skill of the artisan. The written
memorandum provides enough specific guidance and direction that
-74-
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007