BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 53




                Interference 102,728                                                                                                          
                         discussed the objective with his supervisor as well as at a meeting of his co-                                       
                         workers.  Singh SR564:50, SX3:#108, Hitzeman SR158:8 [sic], SX 25:#483.                                              
                                                                     ***                                                                      
                                 As recorded in his notebook verbatim, at the end of November he decided                                      
                         that he “will do in a different way and w/o without changing codons” SX3:#108.                                       
                         That “different way,” without changing codons, was indeed employed.  A 24mer                                         
                         oligonucleotide was made for Dr. Singh’s own use in December 1982.  The DNA                                          
                         molecules had a DNA sequence complementary to the unchanged codons,                                                  
                         matching exactly the sequence complementary to four codons on each side of                                           
                         the site to                                                                                                          
                         TTG GAT AAA AGA - TGT GAT CTC CCT  SX3:#108 line 3 “sequence that the                                                
                         junction”                                                                                                            
                         AAC CTA TTT TCT - ACA CTA GAG GGA 5'  SX3:#126 the 24 mer in reverse                                                 
                         sequence.                                                                                                            
                And, Paper No. 180, pp. 15-16:                                                                                                

                         ... The reagents he [Dr. Singh] required were themselves extremely unique.  A                                        
                         24mer oligonucleotide (Singh SR564:47, SX3:#126), and the single strand DNA                                          
                         template made from a DNA fragment that, like his “p60” vector, had the site to be                                    
                         deleted encoded within it (e.g. the undesired Glu-Ala sequences).  Singh                                             
                         SR566:52, SX3:#131-132.  The existence of these two reagents, and further his                                        
                         corroborators conformation that they were in Dr. Singh’s possession in                                               
                         December of 1982  (Ng SR478:11, Lugovoy SR470-471:8), can only mean one                                              
                         thing - it is reasonable to conclude that he indeed formulated in December 1982,                                     
                         the very deletion method he used to carry out his idea in January 1983.  Thus,                                       
                         the notation conforms with his direct testimony, and it is consistent with the                                       
                         problem he was known to be resolving.  Singh SR564:47, SX3:#126.                                                     


                         E.      Opinion on Priority                                                                                          
                         Count 1 is directed to a chemical compound, thus, as discussed above,                                                
                “[c]onception requires (1) the idea of the structure of the chemical compound, and                                            
                (2) possession of an operative method of making it.”  Oka v. Youssefyeh, 849 F.2d at                                          
                581, 7 USPQ2d at 1171.  “The idea must be definite and permanent in the sense that it                                         

                                                                     53                                                                       





Page:  Previous  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007