Interference No. 103,586
(100Fg/tube) of rat brain cell extracts as the farnesyl transferase enzyme and ras C-
7
terminal lys-0-met peptide at 10Fg or 20Fg as the candidate or test substance. Thus,
Brown argue that this experiment performed by Reiss satisfies each of the elements of the
count.
Brown also offer Exhibit 32, pages 0035-0039, in support of Reiss’s testimony (see
supra, ¶¶ 13,21 and 24). Barbacid allege that this document is not authenticated. We
agree.
Authentication is defined as “genuineness” and is said to be established, when it is
proved to be the thing it is supposed or represented to be. 3 Rivise & Caesar,
Interference Law and Practice, § 435, page 1891 (Michie Co. 1943). An exhibit may be
authenticated by oral testimony of a witness but not by the uncorroborated testimony
of the party on whose behalf it is offered in evidence. Hence, a witness must properly
Interestingly, a review of the Reiss testimony indicates that he employed a peptide7
that comprised the carboxy-terminal ten amino acids of the ras molecule and also
recombinant ras (AR ¶ ¶21 and 24). Reiss made no statements that he employed a ras
C-terminal lys-0-met peptide or a purified ras, as now alleged by counsel in the Brown
brief. Further, a review of the Reiss testimony will also show that Reiss did not identify the
concentrations of the components, except for the peptide at 10Fg and 20Fg. Hence, these
arguments are unsupported attorney arguments. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 193
USPQ2d 17 (CCPA), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 854 (1977). Exhibits do not speak for
themselves. Amoss v. McKinley, 195 USPQ 452, 453-454 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1977). A witness
is required to explain the exhibits. 37 C.F.R. § 1.671(f).
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007