Interference 103,781
the work remaining for Fischhoff and Perlak to reduce an
embodiment thereof to practice, while extensive, was routine.
The subsequent research and experimentation performed had as its
purpose the optimization of a definite and complete solution to a
problem. The work was not designed to solve an unsolved problem.
The written memorandum did not merely pose a problem. The
written memorandum presented a solution to that problem. The
written memorandum explicitly states, “We also predict that
changing the base composition of the B.t.k. coding sequence to a
lower A+T content and/or the removal of specific oligonucleotide
signals rich in A+T will lead to a significant increase in stable
B.t.k. mRNA in plant cells” (MDX 1478). We find no evidence of
record inconsistent with our present finding that Fischhoff’s
written memorandum conceived of the invention of Claim 3 of
Fischhoff’s involved application corresponding to Count 2 as of
its date.
However, the testimony of Fischhoff’s inventors, and the
corroborating testimony of associates acting at their design and
direction, that Fischhoff’s inventors conceived of the invention
of Count 2 no later than October 30, 1986, may not be sufficient
to establish October 30, 1986, as the date they first conceived
of the invention of Count 2. An inventor’s testimony, standing
alone, is generally insufficient to prove conception without
-75-
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007