Interference No. 102,572
of an IgG molecule comprising the heavy and light chain of the CEA.66-E3 antibody, and
that such product is useful.
We find that Cabilly et al. have failed to show the essential elements of the count, to
wit: (1) the first and second DNA sequences of the heavy and light chain of CEA.66-E3
antibody, and (2) that the separate molecules expressed contain the heavy and light chain
of CEA.66-E3 antibody. In addition, Cabilly et al. have failed to show production of the
IgG molecule of CEA.66-E3 antibody and that such product is useful.
Cabilly et al. argue that the heavy and light chains of the anti-CEA antibody were
cloned and sequenced by the end of October, 1982, citing CR-30 and CR-33. In support
of this argument, Cabilly et al. rely upon Holmes’ testimony that Rey sequenced both the
light chain and heavy chain DNA inserts. Holmes’ testimony requires corroboration. A
review of Rey’s testimony indicates that he only assisted in sequencing of the heavy and
light chain cDNA’s. Rey has not explained what he meant by “assisted”, what the results
were from such alleged sequencing and when such work was done. CX-15 contains
various attachments as well as handwritten entries which are not at all legible. This
notebook, CX-15, as best that we can review it, does not appear to contain DNA
sequences for the heavy and light chain of CEA.66-E3 antibody. Rey’s parenthetical
reference to certain pages of CX-15 in his declaration are deemed insufficient to explain
the entries on the pages or when this work was done. In our view, Rey’s testimony, some
nine years after the alleged activities, and his alleged notebook are insufficient to identify
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007