Interference No. 102,408
test" was not followed (KB21-22). We agree with Kolar that
two multi-dose assays, each performed at a different
laboratory, are not reported for the compounds tested. See
CR291 (“For confirmed activity a synthetic must have two
multi-dose assays (each performed at a different laboratory)
that produce a T/C $ 125%
. . . ."). Furthermore, it is unclear from exhibit B attached
to the Durr declaration whether 5-fluorouracil was used as the
positive control compound. See KB22; CRB12; CR291.
In addition, exhibit B attached to the Durr declaration
bears the following dates: "DATE 6/20/84", (2) "Data Entered
7/27/84," (3) "A.J. Hauss 9/25/84," and (4) "9/27/84 H.L.
Lindsay," two of which are after the critical date, and
exhibit C bears the date "6/20/84." However, with the
exception of the June 20, 1984, date, junior party Child has
not explained the significance of these dates. See CB8;
CR287, ¶¶ 7 and 8.
Child does state that "[p]rior to September 3, 1984, I
learned that the compound which is described in Exhibit 1 had
anti-cancer activity in the P 388 antileukemia test" (CR356, ¶
4; emphasis added). Nevertheless, as discussed above, exhibit
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007