BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 36




                Interference 102,728                                                                                                          
                         In addition, we find that in para. 9 of his declaration, Dr. Falkinham cites to                                      
                column 2, line 68, and column 3, line 25.27   Thus, we agree with Brake that Dr.                                              
                Falkinham is discussing the Brake patent which is based on Brake’s continuation-in-                                           
                part, Application 06/522,909 (Brake 2), filed August 12, 1983.  Accordingly, we find that                                     
                Dr. Falkinham’s conclusion that “[o]ne skilled in the art would have determined from the                                      
                Brake specification that the n=0 construct was not desirable,” is inconsistent with the                                       
                evidence of record.  That is, the Brake specification from which Dr. Falkinham draws his                                      
                conclusion that the “n=0” construct is not desirable is the very specification which                                          
                contains the claim which is the subject matter of this interference.  Claim 1 of the Brake                                    
                patent (Brake 2) is identical to Count 1 of this interference.                                                                
                         Singh further argues that modifying genetic constructs was unpredictable at the                                      
                time the Brake 1 application was filed.  Paper No. 30, p. 14.  Singh relies on paragraph                                      
                10 of Dr. Falkinham’s declaration for support.  Dr. Falkinham states:                                                         
                         Brake attested to this unpredictability at page 14 of the 06/522,909 application,                                    
                         where “Surprisingly, a deletion occurred where the codon for the 3rd and 5th                                         
                         amino acids for EGF, asp and ser, were deleted with the remainder of the EGF                                         
                         being retained” [emphasis added] [Falkinham declaration, pp. 3-4, para. 10].                                         
                         We find this argument unconvincing.                                                                                  
                         It is not clear to us, and Dr. Falkinham does not explain, how this section of the                                   
                Brake 2 specification, which describes the addition of synthetic linkers to a DNA                                             


                         27 Brake points out that Dr. Falkinham has misunderstood the teachings at                                            
                column 3, line 25, of the Brake patent.  Brake Reply, Paper No. 44, p. 13.  The                                               
                referenced section of the patent provides that r’ is “2 to 4, preferably 2 or 4" when “n is                                   
                0.”  Id.  We find that unreliable testimony, such as this, undermines Dr. Falkinham’s                                         
                credibility as an expert witness.                                                                                             
                                                                     36                                                                       





Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007