NEMERSON et al. V. EDGINGTON et al. V. LAWN et al. - Page 42


             Interference No. 103,203                                                                          

             as indicating a question with respect to a single cytosine residue and that as a result he        
             rechecked “the data that was input into the computer” (NR 111, lines 13-15) and                   
                                                                                       20                      
             determined that there was no typographical error in the nucleotide sequence.   However,           
             Dr. Bach does not disclose when he rechecked the data, or how it was done.  Thus, we do           
             not find that Dr. Bach’s testimony with respect to the data on the computer printout (NRE         
             278) provides a sufficient explanation as to how he was able to derive a complete and             
             correct handwritten amino acid/nucleotide sequence from one which was incomplete and              
             contained numerous errors.                                                                        
                   Moreover, in NRE 278 with respect to the notation “? typo” (MS&Y 7669, line 961),           
             we find that it [the notation] indicates that the “C” (cytosine residue) is to be removed.        
             When the “C” is removed, the protein ends at the histidine residue at position 259.  In fact,     
             we find that the “His” residue at 259 is underlined and the “End” following said “His”            
                                                                                                  21           
             residue circled, thus, appearing to indicate that the “His” residue is the end of the protein.    
             That is, in Frame B, the underlining continues up to the final Trp, Lys, Glu, Asn, Ser.  Then it  
             skips to Frame C where the “His” residue is underlined and the “End” following said “His”         
             residue is circled.  Thus, in contrast to Dr. Bach’s testimony, we find that the notations in     
             the computer printout of the nucleotide sequence dated February 3, 1987, suggest that the         


                   20We point out that this statement appears to be inconsistent with his testimony with respect to
             the cytosine residue being a typographical error, that he “had to interact with the people who had read the
             sequence and who had entered it into the computer to verify which sequence they -- was the correct
             sequence. ... I do not remember who had that -- who read that sequence, but it would have been Eleanor
             Spicer or her technician who would have enter in it into the computer, so she certainly would have been
             consulted [NR 113, lines 8-15].”  Dr. Bach does not indicate when such a consultation occurred or what
             was discussed with Dr. Spicer.                                                                    
                   21We also note that downstream from the “His” residue at position 259 and the “Ser” residue at
             263, eight more “End” residues are circled.  It is not clear to us, and Dr. Bach has not explained, the
             significance of these markings.                                                                   
                                                      42                                                       



Page:  Previous  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007