recorded the results for SC-58394 in her notebook (Exh. 2038),
Koboldt did not explain the meaning of the recorded results.
For example, Koboldt did not explain how the values she
obtained for
SC-58394 (found in pages of her notebook (Exh. 2038)), led her
to conclude that SC-58394 had "good" COX-2 inhibitory
selectivity (Exh. 2029 at ¶9). The recorded results Koboldt
points to (at Exh. 2038) amount to fourteen pages of tables
and graphs, none of which are explained in any detail by
Koboldt.
Koboldt also testified that compounds having good COX-2
inhibitory selectivity "are considered to have
pharmacologically useful anti-inflammatory properties" (Exh.
2029 at ¶9) and that "[a]t the time of the events described
below, compounds having the ability to inhibit the activity of
the COX-2 enzyme in vitro were understood to have anti-
inflammatory utility predictive of their practical utility"
(Exh. 2019 at ¶2). Evidence of in vitro activity in
combination with a known correlation between in vitro and in
vivo activity may be sufficient to establish a practical
utility. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d at 1565, 39 USPQ2d
at 1900; however, Koboldt's testimony does not credibly
establish a known correlation between in vitro and in vivo
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007