Interference No. 102,572
or corroborate the identity of the DNA sequences encoding for the heavy and light chain of
CEA.66-E3. Corroboration must consist of factual evidence as to what was done, not of
broad generalizations or conclusions. Murphy v. Eiseman, 166 USPQ 149, 150-151 (Bd.
Pat. Int. 1970); Azar v. Burns, 188 USPQ 601, 605 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1975).
Cabilly et al. contend that the heavy and light chain sequences were confirmed by
Holmes and Rey (Brief, page 24) . The Cabilly et al. contention that Rey confirmed the
sequences is unsupported by Rey. Holmes testified that he and Heyneker analyzed the
25
sequences. This testimony requires corroboration and none is offered.
On this record, Cabilly et al. point to no evidence which identifies the first and
second DNA sequences encoding the heavy and light chains of CEA.66-E3 antibody and
thus such argument is but attorney argument. Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782, 193 USPQ at 22.
As to the separate molecules expressed, Cabilly et al. argue that Perry analyzed by
SDS-PAGE the cotransformed cell culture she received. While it is true that Perry testified
that she analyzed a sample supplied to her by Cabilly, this record does not establish that
the sample was labeled, how it was transferred between City of Hope and Genentech,
what the results of the run were with respect to the unlabeled sample and the meaning, if
any, of such results. Perry reference to CX-8, pages 149-151 for contemporaneous
documentation is deemed inadequate in view of the fact that the entries on the pages and
25The Cabilly et al. Brief (page 10, sec. 3) alleges that the work on the light chain
was done on or about October 28, 1982 and for the heavy chain on or about October 18,
1982. This is an unsupported allegation. Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782, 193 USPQ at 22.
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007