Interference No. 102,572
(CR-20A, ¶ 11, see also ¶ 25, supra, in Cabilly et al. case). However, he did not explain
exactly what sample was tested, how it was tested, and what antigen was used. Further he
did not explain how this test and the results of such test establish practical utility. Further,
Wetzel’s testimony and documentation are self-serving and require corroboration.
Perry does not identify the sample tested, the test performed, the results of any
testing or when the tests were performed. Corroboration must be independent of the
inventor and must be to point in time. She simply states at various places that “samples”
were assayed. (CR-27, ¶ 13). She also did not explain how this testing established a
practical utility. Further, Perry does not corroborate Wetzels’ testimony regarding
refolding yield percentages, the value of the refolding process and the levels of chains
allegedly expressed in the transformations.
Cabilly et al. argue that they have shown that there was a well defined “network” of
researchers involved in this project, who maintained reasonable records of their activities
and who worked together to achieve an actual reduction to practice of the invention. We
do not find the Cabilly et al. argument persuasive. As noted, supra, not all of the
researchers were employed by Genentech nor did they maintain reasonable records. The
researchers did not label their samples nor provide a chain of custody for transferring the
samples between the two companies in different cities. In addition, we cannot conclude
that Cabilly et al. maintained reasonable records because of the lack of authentication and
explanation of the exhibits.
45
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007