BERTINA et al v. REITSMA - Page 9




                Interference No. 104,021                                                                Paper No. 112                   
                Griffin v. Bertina                                                                              Page 9                  
                        F25.    The notes (Exh. 1032) do not report a mutation at nucleotide 1691,11 a G A                              
                mutation that changes the encoded amino acid from arginine (R) to glutamine (Q), or a mutation                          
                of any sort in the N-terminal APC cleavage site probed with primers FV7 and FV8.                                        
                        F26. The notes focus on the nt 5248 (Cys) mutation, indicating that Xu would sequence                           
                the phospholipid binding site where it occurs in other patients that week and that the mutation                         
                does not always show up in LS sequences and may be a "sequencing artifact"  (Exh. 1032).                                
                        Analysis                                                                                                        
                        If we assume that Dr. Greengard could, and did, read the FV7 sequencing gels of LS and                          
                AS on or before 2 December 1993 and then discussed her finding with Drs. Griffin and                                    
                Fernandez, the evidence still does not support a conclusion that Griffin had a reduction to                             
                practice.  At best, the evidence Griffin has adduced indicates that the Griffin inventors had, by                       
                2 December 1993, identified a mutation of interest at an interesting place in a gene of interest in                     
                one affected patient.12  Even the inventors' testimony does not attest to the possession of more.  It                   
                simply says, as does the corroborating testimony of Fernandez, that they had identified a                               
                mutation.  Contemporaneous documentary evidence (Exh. 1032), does not reflect this                                      
                identification, but does indicate that the search for the cause was on-going, with other possible                       
                sites to explore and other patients to test.                                                                            


                        11  The "S1691C (nt A5248T)" mutation is a mutation at nucleotide 5248 (A T) that corresp onds to a change      
                at amino acid 1691 (S C).                                                                                               
                        12  Indeed, it is questionable whether there was even a conception.  That issue is not before us, but the       
                identification of a possible cause does not seem to add up to a "a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention,
                including every fea ture of the subjec t matter sought to be pate nted". Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 
                1356, 1358-59  (Fed. Cir. 1994) ; Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1919   
                (Fed. Cir. 1994)  ("An idea is de finite and perma nent when the  inventor has a spec ific, settled idea, a pa rticular solution to
                the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan he hopes to pursue.")                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007