Interference No. 102,572
Cabilly indicates that he refolded the material obtained from the refractile bodies
and assayed the refolded protein in an assay to detect active anti-CEA antibody. Cabilly
et al. brief (page 21) alleges that this was done on February 8, 1983. There is no
testimony with regard to the date of this work. Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782, 193 USPQ at
22. There is no testimony or evidence to corroborate the Cabilly’s testimony regard this
testing. Cabilly et al. allege that the assay demonstrated effective refolding of the heavy
and light chains which produced antibody that bound antigen at a level significantly higher
than background. However, the testimony of an inventor is not by itself effective to prove
reduction to practice in the absence of corroboration. White v. Habenstein, 219 USPQ
1213, 1217 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1983). Cabilly’s testimony stands uncorroborated and does not
establish that Cabilly et al. identified a product of the count or its usefulness.
Cabilly et al. urge that we need look no further than the Wetzel and Perry tests
demonstrating immunological activity for the refolded antibody to determine that Cabilly et
al. have proven actual reduction to practice. We disagree. There is no testimony that a
demonstration of binding activity of an unidentified product would establish an actual
reduction to practice of the process of the count. Without explaining the entries on pages
87-88 of CX-6, Wetzel testified that he and Perry conducted an experiment in which “CEA-
binding activity was generated after refolding” and that they found refolding yield
percentages and binding levels. He concluded that “the data shows that the heavy chain
and light chain recombine in the refolding reaction to generate antigen binding activity.
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007