Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
citations omitted). The general testimony of Blackwell and Kane
that the inventors were conducting research in nuclear-transfer
techniques and animal cloning does not provide surrounding facts
and circumstances sufficient to corroborate an actual reduction
to practice of an embodiment within the scope of count 4.
Diligence
Stice's case for diligence is similarly flawed. Its summary
of activities is mere attorney argument, unsupported by testimony
regarding the underlying work reported in Cibelli's laboratory
notebooks. Cibelli's broad description of the research program
(SX 2051 at 3–4, ¶¶ 6–7) lacks particularity, and does not
suffice to explain his notebook entries. Even regarding the
summary, there is no explanation of how the activities relate to
the limitations of count 4. In the absence of testimony
explaining the relation of the activities reported in Cibelli's
notebooks to the subject matter of the counts, and in the absence
of testimony explaining the gaps in the record, we are unable to
assess the significance of Cibelli's notebooks as they relate to
diligent efforts to reduce an embodiment of the invention to
practice, and we decline to accord them any weight.
-27-
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007