Interference No. 104,745
20 January 1998 test. As corroboration, Bai relies on a 16 February 1998 e-mail (BX 2082) from
Sue Mazer, the direct supervisor of the research and development group, Mazer Decl. (BX
2079), which includes the following summary of Dr. Bai's work during the preceding three-week
period:
1. More experimenting on AP-MALDI on ion trap, including peptide
mixture analysis, peptide on PVDF, and ms/ms.
2. Spent some time searching/reviewing literatures/patents.
This e-mail fails as corroboration because it has not been shown that the above information was
obtained independently of Dr. Bai. Also, it lacks sufficient details to establish that the
experiments were successful.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Laiko that Bai cannot be credited with an actual
reduction to practice on 20 January 1998.
LAIKO'S CASE-IN-CHIEF FOR PRIORITY
Bai does not deny that Laiko should be credited with an actual reduction to practice on
14 March 1998, which is almost three months prior to the 6 June 1998 filing date of Laiko's
involved patent.27 Laiko therefore can prevail on the issue of priority by proving conception
prior to Bai's 19 December 1997 conception date coupled with diligence throughout the "critical
period" which begins just before Bai's 19 December 1997 conception date and ends with Laiko's
14 March 1998 actual reduction to practice date. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard,
Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1996)("Where a party is first to
27 Laiko has not been accorded and does not seek the benefit of any earlier-filed application.
- 36 -
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007