Interference 102,728
deletion mutagenesis technique to construct an invention within the scope of the count
on December 1, 1982, or prior to January 12, 1983.
c. The nature of the 24-mer
According to Singh, “It is blatantly apparent to anyone who can follow the base-
pairing rules that the 24-mer ordered on December 1, 1982 was of the precise length
and complementarity to the flanking sequence which was set forth in the November 24
entry noted by the Federal Circuit.” Paper No. 180, p. 16.
Singh argues (Paper No. 180, p. 17) that the evidence in the record which
supports
... the facts [sic] that the 24-mer is of precisely the same length and of the
precise complementarity needed to accomplish the loop deletion [is]: (1) The
synthetic DNA order form has the DNA sequence of the oligonucleotide in
question. SX3:#126. If one counts the number of nucleotides listed on the form
it is indeed 24. (2) The sequence of the site at the junction to be deleted is
correctly set forth in Dr. Singh’s notes as are the flanking 12 nucleotides
sequences which are indeed complementary to the 24-mer oligonucleotide.
SX3:#108, #126.
TTG GAT AAA AGA- TGT GAT CTC CCT SX3:#108 line 3 “sequence at the
junction”
AAC CTA TTT TCT- ACA CTA GAG GGA 5' SX3:#126 the 24mer in reverse
sequence
Dr. Singh testified regarding this work. Singh SR564: 47, 52 (4). Dr.
Singh’s direct testimony explaining this work is corroborated by not only these
documents, but also by the testimony of Mr. Ng SR478:11, Ms. Lugovoy SR470-
471:8, and Dr. Hitzeman SR158:8.
We agree that the 24-mer is complementary to the nucleotide sequence which
encodes “leu-asp-lys-arg-cys-asp-leu-pro” as shown in SX 3, Bates No.108 and thus,
could be used in the loop deletion method described in the Adelman publication (SX 53-
see Figure 3); however, we find this insufficient to establish that Dr. Singh had “a
71
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007