Interference No. 102,572
time. Neither inventors Cabilly and Holmes nor corroborator Rey testified to when the
alleged constructions and confirmations were done. Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782, 193
USPQ at 22. Cabilly’s and Holmes’ testimony with respect to the making and confirming
the constructs requires corroboration. Holmes indicates that he made pGammaCEAInt2,
an expression plasmid said to contain the heavy chain of CEA.66-E3 antibody. He does
not indicate what he did with this expression plasmid after making it. Cabilly et al. in their
brief, allege that his work was done on or about December 2, 1982. This allegation is
unsupported. The process involved a series of complex steps. See Cabilly et al. case, ¶
11, supra. Cabilly indicates that he made pKCEAtrp207-1*delta, an expression plasmid
said to contain the light chain of CEA.66-E3 antibody, by initially modifying pKCEAtrp207-
1.* Cabilly et al., in their brief, have not presented any citation to the record or argument
as to who made pKCEAtrp207-1,* how it was made, what DNA sequence it contained or
how Cabilly got it.
Rey’s limited testimony that he sequenced a fragment of the light chain following a
primer repair reaction (Cabilly et al. case, ¶ 9, supra, Rey ¶ 5, CR-34) does not and can
not corroborate the making or confirmation of both of these two expression plasmids or the
identity of the first and second DNA sequence of the count. Hence, Holmes’ and Cabilly’s
testimony with respect to the making and confirmation of the expression plasmids said to
contain the heavy and light chain of CEA.66-E3 antibody stands uncorroborated. An
inventor’s statements are self-serving and have no corroborative value. The record before
41
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007