Barton et al or Fischhoff et al v. Adang et al. - Page 155




          Interference 103,781                                                        
                    WITNESS:  Yes. [(AR 0377); and]                                   
                    Q.  As of April 25th, 1988, is it correct that you                
               considered the ATTTA sequence to be one of the nasties                 
               because it was potentially destabilizing?                              
                                      . . . . .                                       
                    A.  Yes. [(AR 0378).]                                             
               We repeat the court’s statement in Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v.           
          Barr Labs., 40 F.3d at 1229, 32 USPQ2d at 1920:                             
               A conception is not complete if the subsequent course of               
               experimentation, especially experimental failures, reveals             
               uncertainty that so undermines the specificity of the                  
               inventor’s idea that it is not yet a definite and permanent            
               reflection of the complete invention as it will be used in             
               practice.                                                              
               The kinds and amounts of experimentation and analyses Adang            
          performed, and the related testimony of Adang’s inventors and               
          associates, indicate that prior to December 12, 1986, Adang did             
          not have “‘a definite and permanent idea of the complete and                
          operative invention [of Count 2], 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 of Count 2 that “only ordinary                
          skill would have been necessary to reduce the invention to                  
          practice, without extensive research or experimentation,”                   
          Burroughs-Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32                
          USPQ2d 1915, 1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  Nevertheless, even assuming            
                                        -155-                                         





Page:  Previous  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007