Interference No. 103,203
We do not find Dr. Konigsberg’s statements establish that Nemerson et al. were in
possession of a species within the scope of Count 2 on February 3 (or 4), 1987.
First, Dr. Konigsberg is a co-inventor and, thus, his statements require independent
corroboration. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1037 (Fed. Cir.
1993); Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032-33, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Second, Dr. Konigsberg does not provide any explanation as to the ambiguity which was
said to exist, which sequencing gels needed to be re-run, where the G compression was,
what sequencing error he is referring to, etc. Thus, since Dr. Konigsberg fails to (i) point
any factual evidence to support his position, and (ii) explain precisely what experiments
remained to be done, we find that his testimony consists of broad generalizations and
conclusions. Third, in our view, Dr. Konigsberg’s statement that from re-running the
sequencing gels they hoped to confirm the length of the mature tissue factor protein
indicates that further research was necessary to determine the complete and correct
nucleotide sequence of said protein. Thus, we find that Dr. Konigsberg’s affidavit is
inconsistent with Dr. Bach’s testimony and, if anything, evinces that the Nemerson et al. co-
inventors were not in possession of a complete and
correct nucleotide sequence encoding human tissue factor from about residue 1 to 263 on
February 3, 1987.
As we understand Fact 43, Nemerson et al. are relying on the testimony of Drs.
Bloem and Lin, two research scientists in Dr. Konigsberg’s laboratory, to corroborate Dr.
Bach’s communication
48
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007