Interference 102,728
complete conception of this novel method of making a compound within the scope of
the count using the ordered 24-mer.
Moreover, we find that, at best, the notation states a goal which Dr. Singh hopes
to achieve; i.e., an in-frame deletion of the “"pro-IFN-D junction.” As discussed above,
an in-frame deletion is a generic term which refers to a deletion of nucleotides, by any
method, wherein the reading frame remains unchanged. “Loop deletion” mutagenesis
is species which falls within the genus of in-frame deletions. The notation does not
describe the loop deletion mutagenesis means by which it is said that Dr. Singh
planned to achieve his result. See Rivise and Caesar, Interference Law and Practice,
Vol. I, § 110, p. 317 (“Conception is not the perception or realization of the desirability
of producing a certain result; rather it is the perception or realization of the means by
which the result can be produced”). Thus, even if we assume, arguendo, that the
notation on the December 21, 1982, notebook page does not require independent
corroboration, we find that the notation does not express a definite and permanent idea
as to how to employ the 24-mer in the “loop deletion” mutagenesis procedure to
accomplish that goal.
We further point out that even if we assume, arguendo, that the notation does
not require independent corroboration, there are additional reasons as to why we find
that it [the notation] fails to establish that Dr. Singh had a definite and permanent idea
of the specific approach of using the novel Genentech “loop deletion” mutagenesis
technique prior to January 12, 1983.
61
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007