Interference No. 102,572
the contentions of the party with respect to the issues to be decided, and the
reasons therefor, with citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and
part of the record relied on. (Emphasis added)
Conclusions of fact and law made without appropriate citation to the record or citation of
authority will be taken as attorney argument. Compare Ex parte McCullough, 7 USPQ2d
1889, 1891 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988); Ex parte Myer, 6 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1988); In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859, 863-864, 146 USPQ 284, 286 (CCPA
1965). Attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.
Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ2d 17, 22 (CCPA), cert. denied, 434
U.S. 854 (1977).
V.
The Cabilly et al. Case for Priority (as set forth in their brief):
(1) Coinventor Riggs testified that during the period of July 1980 through
September 1980 he was at Genentech on sabbatical from City of Hope. It was his
intention to explore the possibility of producing antibodies in bacteria. According to Riggs,
after returning to City of Hope, he submitted a proposal (CX-2) to Genentech on October
7
5, 1981, which was based in part on conversations he had with Dr. Heyneker and Cabilly.
Riggs contended that he proposed the use of a single bacterial strain for coexpression of
the heavy and light chain genes. Riggs, ¶ 3. Riggs stated that he discussed this project
7Dr. Herbert Heyneker, a coinventor of the Cabilly et al. application, is said to be a
senior scientist from Genentech; he did not testify in this proceeding.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007