Interference No. 103,203
handwritten above the line. The significance of these markings, and when they were
made, is not clear to us and has not been explained in the portion of Dr. Spicer’s testimony
23
relied upon by Nemerson et al.
Moreover, as pointed out by Edgington et al., Dr. Spicer’s testimony that the
nucleotide sequence set forth in the computer printout dated February 3, 1987, coded for
the full-length tissue factor protein is inconsistent with her statements made during cross
examination with respect to the nucleotide sequence data set forth in computer printouts
generated at a later date. Edgington Brief, Paper No. 128, p. 29, first complete para. That
is, during cross examination, Dr. Spicer was asked to compare a computer printout of the
nucleotide sequence dated February 10, 1987 (NRE 102), with the final nucleotide
sequence Nemerson et al. published in a scientific journal (NRE 64). NR 3953-57; NR
3965; NR 3972. Dr. Spicer testified that there were five differences in the nucleotide
sequence data generated on February 10, 1987 (NRE 102), two of which were in the
coding region of the mature protein and which resulted in errors in the amino acid
sequence. NR 3953-57; NR 3965. Dr. Spicer acknowledged that the error in the
nucleotide sequence resulted in a frameshift in the peptide sequence set forth in the “A”
reading frame. NR 3972. During cross examination, Dr. Spicer discussed the error in the
nucleotide sequence on page 3, nucleotide line 301-360, of NRE 102 (MS&Y 7629). Due
23Like the computer printout discussed above by Dr. Bach, NRE 100 contains highlighting and
many handwritten notations. However, Dr. Spicer does not testify as to when the highlighting was added to
the sequence. When asked about the handwritten notations, she stated that she did not know when all of
them were made with the exception of a note to herself on page 3 (MS&Y 7637) that is dated 2/5/87. NR
3824. “So that was made after the printing, obviously.” NR 3824. In addition, Dr. Spicer acknowledges
that not all the handwritten notations are hers. NR 3822, lines 2-13. For example, she could not identify
who made the notation about missing nucleotides on page 2 (MS&Y 7636) and the “switch to long read”
notation on page 3 (MS&Y 7637). Id. Thus, viewing NRE 100 in its entirety, we cannot conclude that
Nemerson et al. were in possession of a species within the scope of the count on February 3, 1987.
45
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007