Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
before senior party Campbell conceived of its invention. Stice's
arguments fail at virtually every level.
First, Stice has failed to show that its evidence of
conception, when read by one skilled in the relevant art,
discloses every element of the count. The alternative definition
of count 4 provided by Campbell claim 23, which recites a method
of cloning a bovine fetus, is the most relevant to Stice's
proofs. The limitation to which the parties have devoted the
most attention is underscored in the first step, which reads as
follows:
(i) inserting a nucleus of a cultured diploid bovine
fibroblast in the G1 phase of the cell cycle into an
unactivated, enucleated metaphase II-arrested bovine
oocyte to reconstruct an embryo.
The evidence on which Stice relies for its proof of conception is
directed to fibroblasts generally: "Want to try electroporation
on fibroblast so that they can be used to produce nuclear
transfer embryos from clonal cells. Will talk to Jose about
this." (SX 2055.) This statement, by itself, does not relate to
cattle in particular, as recited in Campbell claim 23. As
counsel for Stice conceded at oral argument, "there is no cow
there." (Paper 120 at 10, l. 12 (erroneously attributed to Mr.
Meyers; Mr. Daignault spoke.)) Count 4 specifies further that
-20-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007