Interference 103,781
We have little doubt that Drs. Adang and Murray were aware
of the existence of polyadenylation signals in Bt toxin genes and
discussed the possibility that those polyadenylation signals
could be causing the problems they and their colleagues faced
prior to December 12, 1987 (AB 49, Facts 116-118). However,
Adang’s continuous and varied search for the cause of problems
they faced expressing the Bt toxin gene in plants after
December 12, 1986, is inconsistent with a conclusion that Adang
conceived of the solution, i.e., the invention defined by Claim 3
of Fischhoff’s involved application, prior to December 12, 1986,
and exercised reasonable diligence toward its reduction to
practice. The preponderance of evidence before us indicates
that, prior to December 12, 1986, and continuing well into 1988,
Adang did not have “‘a definite and permanent idea of the
complete and operative invention [of Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s
involved application], 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). Nor did Adang so
clearly defined the invention of Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s involved
application prior to December 12, 1986, that “only ordinary skill
would have been necessary to reduce the invention to practice,
without extensive research or experimentation,” Burroughs-
-142-
Page: Previous 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007