Interference No. 104,745
(f) constructing a lens support and attaching it to the laser housing, id. at ¶ 60;
(g) constructing an "optical bench" for the laser using books and furniture, id. at ¶ 61;
(h) obtaining an XY translator table for the supporting laser by separating a microscope
from its XY translator table and modifying the table to support the laser, id. at ¶ 62;
(i) fabricating a target assembly for supporting the sample, id. at 63; and
(j) pre-assembling the major components of the AP-MALDI system to verify that they
could be quickly disassembled so as to allow for the next day's ESI (electrospray ionization)
experiments, id. at ¶ 64.
The amount of time spent identifying and ordering the ECLIPSE™ glasses has not been
established and even if it had could not be counted toward diligence in the absence of evidence
corroborating a belief that these glasses were believed to be necessary for conducting an actual
reduction to practice of the AP-MALDI apparatus. Cf. I Interference Law and Practice § 182
("[T]he activities relied upon as constituting diligence must have been directed to a reduction to
practice of the invention in issue or to overcoming the difficulties that may have been in the way
of a reduction to practice."). That these glasses were not considered essential for an actual
reduction to practice of the AP-MALDI apparatus is evident from the fact that these glasses were
not even ordered from Cole-Parmer by the Materiel Management Unit until 13 March 1998, the
day before the actual reduction to practice occurred, LX 1048; Schwartz Decl. (LX 1062) ¶¶ 13-
14, at which time the delivery date was estimated to be 19 March 1998.
As for the other activities mentioned above, even assuming for the sake of argument that
they necessarily must have occurred as part of Dr. Laiko's preparation for an actual reduction to
- 57 -
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007