BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 58




            Interference 102,728                                                                              
                                b.    SX 3 Bates No. 126                                                      
                   SX 3, Bates No. 126 is a page which is said to be from Dr. Singh’s notebook.  As           
            an initial matter, we point out that the evidence before us is only a photocopy of what is        
            said to be the original notebook page.35  The page includes a “Synthetic DNA Request”             
            for an oligonucleotide which is a 24-mer (“5' AGGGAGATCACATCTTTTATCCAA”).                         
            The requestor is listed as Arjun Singh.  The order has been approved by Mark P.                   
            Vasser, and dated “12-1-82.”  According to Brake, and Singh does not disagree, the                
            Synthetic DNA Request form shown on the page has been taped into the notebook.                    
                   In the upper left corner of the notebook page is an undated, handwritten                   
            notation which reads “oligonucleotide for making in-frame deletion of "pro-IFN-D                  
            junction.”  At the bottom of the page is a handwritten date “12/21/82" recorded by                
            Dr. Singh.  The witnessing was done three and one half years later; i.e., “6/13/86.”              
                   Singh urges that because the 24-mer shown on the laboratory notebook page                  
            dated “12/21/82” (SX 3, Bates No. 126) is complementary to the four (4) codons on                 
            each side of the glu-ala sequence indicated on the laboratory notebook page dated                 
            “11/24/82” (SX 3, Bates No. 108) that Dr. Singh conceived of the “loop deletion”                  
            mutagenesis technique for removing the glu-ala sequence of the " factor spacer                    


                   35 We note Brake’s belated submission of three (3) declarations; i.e., the                 
            declarations of Ms. Debra A. Shetka (Paper No. 187), Dr. Catherine M. Polizza (Paper              
            No. 188) and Dr. Michael R. Ward (Paper No. 189), which discuss the different colors of           
            ink present on Dr. Singh’s laboratory notebook page, SX 3, Bates No. 126.  See also,              
            Brake Brief, Paper No. 190, pp. 70-71.  We point out that the filing of these declarations        
            is improper.  To enter new evidence at this point, Brake’s only recourse is to file a             
            motion to reopen testimony.  37 C.F.R. § 1.687.  This Brake did not do and, thus, the             
            declarations have not been considered by this merits panel.                                       
                                                     58                                                       





Page:  Previous  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007