Interference No. 104,101
Page 24
According to Lilly, Mr. Cullinan conducted various reduction reactions. Generally, Lilly
directs our attention to Mr. Cullinan’s alleged reduction reactions of June 2, 1992 and March 11,
1993. (Lilly Main Brief at Final Hearing, Paper No. 202, pp 26-31). Further, Lilly directs our
attention to Mr. Cullinan’s March 17, 1993 salifying process for the product obtained on page
261 of his notebook (the product made on March 11, 1993) and his March 22, 1993 process for
drying the March 17, 1993 salified product. (Paper No. 202, pp. 32-35). Lilly contends that the
products made by Mr. Cullinan on June 2, 1992, March 11, 1993, March 17, 1993 and the dried
product made on March 22, 1993 fall within the scope of Count 1.
Between April 17 and April 21, 1993, a Lilly scientist, Mr. Magee, is said to have
performed an analysis of the biological activity of a variety of compounds, including Mr.
Cullinan’s March 17, 1993 product identified as compound no. LY 311583. (Paper No. 202,
p. 38). Mr. Magee is said to have observed that LY 311583 did induce a significant reduction of
serum cholesterol at the lowest dosage tested, 0.1 mg/kg, in the treated rats as compared to
control rats. Mr. Magee is said to have reported these results to a Lilly named inventor, Mr.
Henry Bryant, in the week in which the tests were performed. (Paper No. 202, p. 38).
Cameron argues that Lilly has failed to prove an actual reduction to practice.
Specifically, Cameron alleges that Lilly lacks sufficient corroborated evidence of an actual
reduction to practice. (Paper No. 203, p. 10). Cameron states that, with the exception of the
mass spectroscopy testimony of Mr. Paicely, the alleged analytical data is not supported by
testimony of the persons who actually did the testing. Moreover, Cameron states that there is no
explanation of how any analytical data, including that allegedly generated by Mr. Paicely,
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007