Interference 103,781
picture painted by all the evidence taken collectively
gives the board “an abiding conviction” that [the
inventor’s] assertion of prior conception is “highly
probable.”
Now, let us examine Adang’s evidence of prior conception of
the invention of Count 2. Our examination takes two paths.
Adang first argues, and points to evidence purporting to show,
that it conceived of the invention of Claim 1 of Adang’s involved
patent corresponding to Count 2 prior to October 30, 1986
(AB 44-47). Adang next argues, and points to evidence purporting
to show, that it conceived of the invention of Claim 3 of
Fischhoff’s involved application prior to October 30, 1986
(AB 48-51).
a. Adang’s purported conception of Claim 1 or 11
of Adang’s U.S. 5,380,831 and reasonable
diligence toward reduction to practice
(i) The count
Claim 1 or 11 of Adang’s involved patent represents one
definition of the invention of Count 2. Claim 1 of Adang’s
involved patent reads:
1. A method of designing a synthetic Bacillus
thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants,
comprising the steps of:
[a] analyzing the coding sequence of a gene derived
from a Bacillus thuringiensis which encodes an
insecticidal protein toxin, and
[b] modifying a portion of said coding sequence to
yield a modified sequence which contains a greater
-88-
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007