Interference No. 102,572
derived from the inventor. Zoiss v. Nix, 185 USPQ 419, 421-422 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1974).
Further, since SDS-PAGE is but a technique to separate proteins or nucleotides by size
and the sample allegedly contained refractile bodies, neither Perry nor any other witness
explained the results of this run, what such analysis would establish or how one would know
from the data of the run that the process of the count had been successfully performed and
the intended product made.
Cabilly et al. also allege that Mumford received these cotransformed cells on
February 2, 1983. This allegation is not corroborated by Mumford. Mumford testified that
he received from Heyneker’s lab, on February 2, 1983, samples labeled
W3110/ p10 and W3110/p6 said to contain the heavy and light chain of CEA.66-E32 2
antibody. There is no indication in this record that Cabilly labeled his sample(s) as
W3110/ p10 and W3110/p6 and transmitted them from City of Hope to Mumford at2 2
Genentech. Mumford provides no first hand knowledge as to who made these samples,
whether the samples were made according to the process of the count, and whether the
samples contained the separate molecules of the heavy and light chain of CEA.66-E3
antibody. Id. Mumford’s testimony (CR-36, ¶ 7, and ¶ 17 of case in chief) identifying
these two organisms as E.coli strains that had been cotransformed with two plasmids for
coexpression of heavy and light chain of an anti-CEA antibody is not independent of the
inventor. Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032, 13 USPQ2d at 1317; Reese, 661 F.2d at 1225, 211
USPQ at 940.
43
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007