Interference 103,781
(Claim 11 of Adang’s involved U.S. 5,380,831) as a solution to
the problem. Even if we presume that the evidence supports a
finding that Drs. Adang and Murray suspected that modification of
native Bt DNA sequences encoding toxin to better resemble plant-
preferred codon usage would improve expression of the sequence in
plants, Drs. Adang and Murray continued to regard the search for
the region or regions of the native Bt gene that caused Bt RNA
instability in plants as the principal solution to the problem
(AR 0107-0108). We find that prior to December 12, 1986, and
during the critical period from December 12, 1986, to September
9, 1988, Drs. Adang and Murray were not confident what caused
premature termination of transcription in plants transformed by
Bt gene sequences; i.e., why they found Bt RNA sequences fewer in
amount, if any, and much shorter in length, than would have been
predicted in plants transformed by native Bt genes encoding
insecticidal protein (AX 101B; AR 4153). Moreover, the evidence
weighs heavily against Adang’s argument that it had “‘a definite
and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as
it is therefore to be applied in practice.’ Coleman v. Dines,
754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . .”,
Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1449, 41 USPQ2d 1686, 1689
(Fed. Cir. 1997), or so clearly defined the invention that “only
ordinary skill would have been necessary to reduce the invention
-131-
Page: Previous 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007