Interference 103,781
practice.” Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097, 53 USPQ2d 1696,
1698 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The facts, as we find them supported by a preponderance of
the evidence before us, contradict Adang’s argument that it
exercised reasonable diligence toward reduction to practice of
the invention defined by independent Claim 1 or 11 of Adang’s
involved U.S. Patent 5,380,831 from a date just prior to
Fischhoff’s reduction to practice of the invention of Count 2 on
December 12, 1986, until September 9, 1988, the filing date of
the grandparent application, the benefit of which has been
accorded the claims of Adang’s involved patent corresponding to
Count 2 for purposes of priority of invention. Adang’s
recognition that premature termination of transcription in plants
transformed by native Bt genes had to be eliminated in order to
improve plant expression of Bt genes and increase production of
Bt insecticidal protein in plants, does not identify the cause of
the premature termination of transcription or reasonably suggest
“modifying a portion of the coding sequence to yield a modified
sequence which contains a greater number of codons preferred by
the intended plant” (Claim 1 of Adang’s involved U.S. 5,380,831)
or “modifying a portion of said coding sequence to yield a
modified sequence which has a frequency of codon usage which more
closely resembles the frequency of codon usage of the plant”
-130-
Page: Previous 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007