Interference No. 102,572
“Monoclonal Antibodies for Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Related Antigens as a Model
System: A Systematic Approach for the Determination of Epitope Specificities of
Monoclonal Antibodies,” authored by several persons including Shively, published in May,
1983, after the date accorded to Boss et al. The significance of this document with
respect to the cells made and given to Riggs in February 1981 has never been explained.
28
Moreover and contrary to Cabilly et al. allegations (brief, page 9 and reply brief page 12)
, no one gave detailed testimony explaining exactly how the cell line, CEA.66-E3, was
prepared, how the antibodies produced therefrom were characterized, and what, if any,
epitope specificity the antibody has. Statements in the brief cannot take the place of
evidence in the record. Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782, 193 USPQ at 22.
In addition to not having established all the steps of the process, the production and
appreciation of the intended product and the usefulness of the same, we find after a
reasoned examination, analysis and evaluation of all the pertinent evidence relied upon by
Cabilly et al. that the work allegedly done by inventors stands uncorroborated.
Cabilly alleges that he received the cell line, CEA.66-E3, from Shively in
September of 1981 and extracted the mRNA therefrom. Cabilly’s oral testimony regarding
the obtention of the cell line is not confirmed by Shively.
28Cabilly et al., in their brief (page 9), argue that the CEA.66-E3 cell line prepared
by Shively and given to Riggs in February 1981, was produced by polyethylene glycol
(PEG) fusion of cells from a myeloma cell line Sp2/0-Ag 14 with
splenocytes from female BALB/c mice which had been immunized with CEA, at a ratio of
1:3, citing Shively CR-17 and CX-4.
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007