Interference 102,728
paragraph 8 of the declaration of Dr. Audrey Goddard, is unclear. The declaration
reads as follows:
8. The C-track of clones 4, 6 and 9 are identical. The position of C’s
in the autoradiograph for clones 4, 6 and 9 corresponds to the expected
positions from original nucleotides 220 to 290 of the original sequence if a
deletion of nucleotides 256-279 (inclusive) have occurred in these clones at the
anticipated deletion site. (Singh Exhibit No. 4, Notebook 1576, Bates Nos.
000148-000152).
We find Dr. Goddard’s testimony insufficient to corroborate Dr. Singh’s complete
conception of the loop deletion mutagenesis method to construct a species within the
scope of the count. Dr. Goddard appears to be discussing some partial nucleotide
sequencing reactions which were performed in February, 1983; it is not apparent where
there is any mention of Dr. Singh’s alleged December, 1982 plan to employ the 24-mer
in the loop deletion mutagenesis procedure. Thus, Dr. Goddard’s testimony is
irrelevant both in terms of subject matter and time. Accordingly, we find that Dr.
Goddard’s testimony fails to corroborate Dr. Singh’s claim that he conceived of a
“definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention,” using loop
deletion mutagenesis on December 1, 1982, or prior to January 12, 1983. Burroughs
Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 40 F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1919.
Thus, we find Dr. Hitzeman’s testimony does not adequately support Singh’s
position that Dr. Singh conceived of a definite and permanent plan to employ loop
deletion mutagenesis to remove the nucleotide sequence encoding the glu-ala residues
from the " factor spacer sequence in the interferon D expression plasmid (p60).
68
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007