Interference 102,728
First, we point out that Dr. Singh is the sole inventor of the invention claimed in
the Singh application involved in the interference and, as such, his testimony requires
independent corroboration. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 40 F.3d
at 1229, 32 USPQ2d at 1921; Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d at 1189, 26 USPQ2d at 1036-
37.
Second, we find that Dr. Singh states that on December 1, 1982, he ordered a
24 mer for making an “inframe deletion of the junction of " factor prosequence and
interferon.” However, an “inframe deletion” is a generic term which simply refers to any
type of deletion wherein the reading frame of the nucleotides remains unchanged.
Thus, we find that Dr. Singh’s statement reflects a goal that he hoped to achieve, rather
than a specific and definite plan for performing the novel “loop deletion” mutagenesis
technique. In fact, we find no mention of “loop deletion” mutagenesis in the sections of
Dr. Singh’s testimony relied upon by Singh. Nor do we find that Dr. Singh testifies to
having had any discussions with Genentech scientists, including Mr. Vasser, who were
said to be involved with the development of this process (Paper No. 180, pp. 8-20).
2. Dr. Singh’s Notebooks as Corroborating Evidence
To demonstrate Dr. Singh’s conception of “loop deletion” mutagenesis Singh
points to his [Dr. Singh’s] laboratory notebooks:
a. SX 3 Bates No. 108
SX 3, Bates No. 108, is said to be a page from Dr. Singh’s notebook. The page
contains a handwritten date of recordation of “11/24/82.” The page contains a
handwritten date of witnessing of “6/13/86.” The page reads as follows:
56
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007