Barton et al or Fischhoff et al v. Adang et al. - Page 143




          Interference 103,781                                                        

          Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915,             
          1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  In short, Adang’s case for priority of              
          the invention defined by Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s involved                    
          application is weak.  As said in Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v. Barr             
          Labs., 40 F.3d at 1227-28, 32 USPQ2d at 1919 (emphasis added):              
                    Conception is the touchstone of inventorship, the                 
               completion of the mental part of invention.  Sewall v.                 
               Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir.             
               1994).  It is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of           
               a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative            
               invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.”              
               Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d                
               1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citation                  
               omitted).  Conception is complete only when the idea is so             
               clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary              
               skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to                    
               practice, without extensive research or experimentation.               
               Sewall, 21 F.3d at 415, 30 USPQ2d at 1359. . . . .                     
                    Thus, the test for conception is whether the inventor             
               had an idea that was definite and permanent enough that one            
               skilled in the art could understand the invention; the                 
               inventor must prove his conception by corroborating                    
               evidence, preferably by showing a contemporaneous                      
               disclosure.  An idea is definite and permanent when the                
               inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution           
               to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research            
               plan he hopes to pursue.  See Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164,           
               1169, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1605 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Amgen, Inc. v.            
               Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d              
               1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . .  These rules ensure that           
               patent rights attach only when an idea is so far developed             
               that the inventor can point to a definite, particular                  
               invention.                                                             
               We recognize that, as stated in Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v.              
          Barr Labs., 40 F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1919-1920, “an inventor           
          need not know that his invention will work for conception to be             

                                        -143-                                         





Page:  Previous  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007