Interference 103,781
concept to modify Bt genes to address premature termination of
transcription during the expression of Bt genes” (AB 47, third
full para.), that “concept” is merely an invitation to follow a
certain path of experimentation. It is not a definite and
permanent solution to the problem. We find no evidence in
Adang’s draft abstract (AX-106E) which shows that Adang conceived
of an invention having all the features of Claim 1 of Adang’s
involved patent, or having all the features of any other claimed
invention to which Count 2 of this interference is directed.
Moreover, we have considered the merits of the disclosure in
Adang’s draft abstract (AX-106E) without questioning Adang’s
presumption that the designation “Nov 6 1985 ucla2" in the
computer listing on page 2195 of AX-106E necessarily corresponds
to the date the draft abstract (AX-106E) was drafted, even though
the abstract does refer to “ucla2" in its first two lines
(AX 106E, p. 2193). Nevertheless, Adang argues that, when the
disclosure of the November 6, 1995, draft abstract is considered
together with the inventors’ testimony, the corroborating
testimony of Ms. Stock, Dr. Romero-Severson and Dr. Sekar, and
the cited publications showing the state of, and knowledge in,
the art on November 6, 1985, the evidence as a whole establishes
that Adang was first to conceive of the invention of Claim 1 of
Adang’s involved patent and thus Count 2 of this interference,
-94-
Page: Previous 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007