Interference 102,728
testing of said compound. Therefore, the lack of a witness who actually observed
Berges combining the reagents to make the compound of the count was outweighed by
the amount of corroborating evidence in support of the inventor’s statements.
In the present case, however, Dr. Singh has not established that he was a
member of a Berges-like team effort. To the contrary, it appears that he worked
independently on the project to synthesize a compound within the scope of the count.
Moreover, the 24-mer is not one part of a large body of independent corroborating
evidence of Dr. Singh’s conception of a “complete and definite idea of the complete and
operative invention, as it was thereafter to be applied in practice”; rather, as pointed out
by Brake, it appears to be the only meaningful evidence. Paper No. 190, p. 64. In
addition, the only declarant who makes any statement with regard to Dr. Singh’s plans
in December, 1982, is Dr. Hitzeman. SR 168, paras. 8 and 9. To that end, we direct
attention to our discussion above (footnote 40), that Dr. Hitzeman does not mention the
24-mer or loop deletion mutagenesis. To the contrary, Dr. Hitzeman testifies that Dr.
Singh discussed using another method of mutagenesis at a meeting on December 14,
1982. SR 168, para. 8.
Third, in Berges, two members of the research team prepared two highly specific
reagents found by the Court to have no substantial use other than synthesize the
compound of the count. Each of these investigators testified that when they gave the
reagents to Berges, they were aware of its intended use. That is, they were aware that
Berges intended to use the reagents to make the compound of the count.
82
Page: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007