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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007