Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
independent nature," 308 F.3d at 1325, 64 USPQ2d at 1907, Stice
has presented no probative evidence corroborating either the
substance or the date of Dr. Stice's alleged conception.
Accordingly, we hold that Stice has failed to prove
conception of an embodiment within the scope of count 4, prior to
Campbell's constructive reduction to practice.
Stice has presented no arguments directed to its prior
conception of the subject matter of counts 5 and 6, which relate
to ovine (sheep) and porcine (pig) embodiments, respectively.
All the evidence put forward by Stice that is arguably prior to
Campbell's benefit date of 31 August 1995 relates to inventions
involving bovines (cattle). Accordingly, we hold that Stice has
failed to demonstrate conception of an embodiment of counts 5
or 6 prior to Campbell's constructive reduction to practice.
Actual reduction to practice
Stice's evidence in support of an actual reduction to
practice of an embodiment within the scope of count 4 are
similarly deficient. Stice made no attempt, in its principal
brief, to explain, with the assistance of relevant evidence,
including expert testimony, how the activities reported in
Cibelli's research notebook on 30 August 1996, amount to a
reduction to practice of an embodiment within the scope of
-24-
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007