BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 79




               Interference 102,728                                                                                                  
               entries on the various pages of the notebooks/exhibits.  This Singh has not done, and in                              
               our review we find nothing on the two notebook pages which suggests that the 24-mer                                   
               oligonucleotide ordered on December 1, 1982, and “the M13 template” have no other                                     
               use other than for loop deletion mutagenesis.                                                                         
                       Here, we agree with Brake that a reagent’s suitability for one purpose is not                                 
               probative of the number of uses to which it can be put.  Paper No. 190, p. 67.  We point                              
               out that the burden is on Singh to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there                              
               is no other reasonable use for the 24-mer other than for loop deletion mutagenesis.                                   
               Here, however, Singh has not pointed to any testimony from Dr. Singh, or other                                        
               investigators at Genentech, to demonstrate that there was no other use for the                                        
               oligonucleotide.  Rather, we find that Singh is attempting to shift the burden to Brake,                              
               and possibly this merits panel, to establish that there were other uses for the 24-mer                                
               other than the loop deletion mutagenesis technique performed by Dr. Singh.  This is not                               
               the proper legal standard.  Since Singh has failed to point to any evidence on which we                               
               are able to determine that there is no other use for the 24-mer, we find its position to be                           
               based solely on arguments of counsel.46  Since such arguments cannot take the place                                   


               notes or notebooks attached to the affidavit or declaration.  It is not the burden of the                             
               Board to try to read the exhibits and correlate allegations made in the brief or testimony                            
               with specific entries.  Amoss v. McKinley, 195 USPQ 452, 453-54 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1977).                                 
                       46 We point out that counsel’s arguments are inconsistent with the record in this                             
               case.  Singh discloses that the 24-mer can be used in the method relied upon for                                      
               constructive reduction to practice.  See Application 06/506,098, p. 26 and Figure 11.                                 
               Singh’s application discloses a method wherein the 24-mer is employed “to modify the                                  
               junction between the factor ‘pre-pro’ sequence and the IFN-"1 gene such that the                                      
               removal of the modified ‘pre-pro’ sequence will result in the release of a mature                                     
                                                                 79                                                                  





Page:  Previous  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007