United States Federal Circuit

The fact that a process generally has a uniform result is not enough to constitute conception for purposes of challenging validity under 35 USC 102(g) if that result was merely a by-product of the inventors- research program, rather than an independent objective.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/31/2001
• Published 05/31/2001

Judges

• Before CLEVENGER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Daniel J. Thomasch,Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, of New York, NY, for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief were Richard W. Mark, Robert M. Isackson, and Geoffrey W. Millsom, of New York, NY;  and Craig R. Kaufman, of Menlo Park, CA. Of counsel was Marc P. Berger, of New York, NY.


• For Appellees:
  
• John F. Lynch, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Richard L. Stanley, Susan K. Knoll, Melinda L. Patterson, Michael E. Lee, and Steven G. Spears.