CABILLY et al. V. BOSS et al. - Page 33




                   Interference No. 102,572                                                                                                                          

                   time of work are not fully explained.  These pages are illegible and also contain                                                                 
                   unexplained attachments.                                                                                                                          
                             Cabilly et al., in their brief, page 16, argue that the SDS-PAGE gel run by Mumford                                                     
                   showed that each of these transformants, GGLH-1 and GGLH-2, was expressing both                                                                   
                   heavy and light chains. (our emphasis).  They also argue in their reply brief, page 17, that                                                      
                   Mumford testified that:                                                                                                                           
                             “Analysis by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) show[ed] a                                                                   
                             band in the 55kD region which is the expected molecular weight of the heavy                                                             
                             chain product,” (Mumford, CR-37,¶10) “ SDS-PAGE analysis indicated                                                                      
                             product expression at the 23.5kD molecular weight range which was                                                                       
                             expected for light chain product,”  (Mumford, CR37-38, ¶12) and then finally                                                            
                             that SDS-PAGE showed that the cotransformed cells expressed both the                                                                    
                             heavy and light chain of the antiCEA-antibody.(our emphasis)                                                                            
                             Initially we note that this record never identifies the origin of GGLH-1 and GGLH-2,                                                    
                   that is, who made them, the process used to make them, and what DNA they contained.                                                               
                   Contrary to the Cabilly et al. arguments,  Mumford never testified that the SDS-PAGE gel                                                          
                   of GGLH-1 and GGLH-2 showed expression of both the heavy and light chain(our                                                                      
                                                                                        26                                               27                       
                   emphasis).  Mumford testified to an expectation  and not to what he actually found.    The                                                        

                             26Mumford actually stated:   [T]he products that were expected from these                                                               
                   fermentation runs were both the light and heavy chain of an anti-CEA antibody.  SDS-                                                              
                   PAGE shows protein expression from the time course samples.  I recorded that the                                                                  
                   fermentation run No. GGLH-1 was harvested and that the 80 grams of wet biomass paste                                                              
                   was given to Dr. Ron Wetzel.  Fermentation GGLH-1 demonstrated refractile bodies upon                                                             
                   microscopic analysis. (¶ 13). (CR-38).                                                                                                            
                             27Mumford’s entry in his notebook No. 18, at page 31 (Bates 730) actually appears                                                       
                   to contradict the Cabilly et al. arguments.  Mumford states (as best that we can read the                                                         
                                                                                                                               (continued...)                        
                                                                                33                                                                                   





Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007