BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 46




                Interference 102,728                                                                                                          
                         Singh appealed to the Federal Circuit.  Singh v. Brake, 222 F.3d 1366, 55                                            
                USPQ2d 1673, 1677 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  There, the Court found that the Board had                                                
                overlooked                                                                                                                    
                         two crucial pieces of evidence: first, a ‘Synthetic DNA Request’ form, dated                                         
                         December 1, 1982, in which Singh requested a 24-mer to carry out the loop                                            
                         deletion experiment, and second, a notation adjacent to the order explaining                                         
                         Singh’s intended use for the 24-mer [30] [Singh v. Brake, 222 F.3d at 1368-69, 55                                    
                         USPQ2d at 1677].                                                                                                     

                         The Court also, noted that                                                                                           
                         the Board makes no mention of the facts that the 24-mer is of precisely the same                                     
                         length and of the precise complementarity needed to accomplish the loop                                              
                         deletion, and thereby obtain the claimed construct; indeed, that oligonucleotide is                                  
                         one of 2.8 x 1014 possible 24-mers that Singh could have ordered [Singh v.                                           
                         Brake, 222 F.3d at 1369, 55 USPQ2d at 1678].[31]                                                                     





                         30 The Court noted that “the Board completely overlooked Singh’s notation                                            
                adjacent to the DNA request form that clearly specified that the 24-mer was to be used                                        
                for accomplishing the necessary loop deletion.”  Singh v. Brake, 222 F.3d at 1369, 55                                         
                USPQ2d at 1678.  To that end, we direct attention to Singh’s argument, above, wherein                                         
                neither SX 3, Bates No. 126, nor the notation thereon, was mentioned.  The Board                                              
                cannot overlook that which was not argued.  Nor does the Board have clairvoyant                                               
                foresight to predict what the parties will argue on appeal.  Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery                                     
                Products, 866, F.2d 1386, 1388, 9 USPQ2d 1736, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“Prescience is                                           
                not a required characteristic of the board.  Thus, the board need not divine all possible                                     
                afterthoughts of counsel that might be asserted for the first time on appeal”).                                               
                         31 Again, we direct attention to Singh’s arguments above.  We point out that                                         
                Singh did not argue that the 24-mer Dr. Singh ordered on December 1, 1982, is of                                              
                precisely the same length and of the precise complementarity need to accomplish the                                           
                loop deletion.  Nor did Singh argue that the referenced oligonucleotide is one of 2.8 x                                       
                1014 possible 24-mers that Singh could have ordered.  The Board cannot consider                                               
                arguments which are not made.                                                                                                 
                                                                     46                                                                       





Page:  Previous  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007