Interference 103,579
applications start at the same basepair. As admitted
by Dr. Bruinenberg during cross examination, that
statement is wrong. The Hergersberg 275 basepair
fragment in an antisense direction would start with 243
and go backwards, while Sequence ID No. 1 of Hofvander
would start at base pair 342 and go backwards. . . . .
8. Dr. Bruinenberg’s statement that the Hergersberg
antisense sequence discloses 80% of Hofvander Sequence
ID No. 1 was also admitted to be wrong. Further, the
statement that the “extra 20 percent of Hofvander sequence
ID No. 1 are promoter sequences, i.e., noncoding DNA
sequences” was also admitted to be wrong. . . . .
9. Dr. Bruinenberg incorrectly identified leader
sequence in both Hergersberg (pages 28-29)(HX 41) and
in SEQ ID No. 1 of Hofvander (HX 40) as being promoter
sequence. . . . .
10. Even Dr. Bruinenberg could not believe the
errors in his Declaration . . . .
Visser responds to Hofvander’s arguments as follows (Paper
No. 134, p. 6):
[A]lthough Hofvander has only moved to suppress
paragraph 11 of the Bruinenberg Declaration, Hofvander
opines that the Bruinenberg Declaration as a whole has
been shown to be unreliable. The basis for contending
that the declaration as a whole is unreliable is set
forth in paragraphs 6-10 of Hofvander’s statement of
material facts. Although Dr. Bruinenberg admittedly
made errors in other portions of the Bruinenberg
Declaration, this is not a reasonable basis for
concluding that the test results set forth in
paragraph 11 of the Bruinenberg Declaration are
unreliable.
We agree with Visser that Hofvander’s motion to suppress
evidence is primarily directed to paragraph 11 of the Bruinenberg
Declaration. To the extent Hofvander argues that Bruinenberg’s
Declaration is as whole unreliable, we find that the argument
-127-
Page: Previous 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007